- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:11:37 -0500
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxxsBYiNnG3n3woj5tEWrthQG03yQMQPWdbc-eVAStXvcA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jason, I'll focus on the snippet "This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins , and other programs — including assistive technologies..." By the inclusion of "This may include" it is clearly indicated (to me) that this is not an exhaustive list, and that "User AGent" can and should also consider hardware peripherals as part of the stack (i.e. a Braille output bar), and here, perhaps the device itself (a mobile device). Personally, I've always given the widest of understanding to 'user agent' as "the stack" of hardware and software tools that allows any individual the ability to connect to and access the web. As well, while the definition you provided is taken from WCAG 1.0, we're now discussing WCAG 2.1, and so I'll suggest that if we agree on the "full stack" definition I mentioned, and we are currently working on WCAG 2.1, that we look to ensure that an updated definition also emerge. I'll return to Patrick's comment: "Certain user groups cannot change the orientation of their device (think for instance fixed mounted tablets on a wheelchair).", and so I honestly believe this *is* a real issue that WCAG 2.1 should address - it may not be 100% "content", but it is a web accessibility issue that is directly created (or not) by the page author (which is what makes it in scope to me). JF On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:55 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 27, 2016 2:43 PM > > What do *you* think? > > *[Jason] I would like to read the proposed success criterion before > deciding. Note that the concept of a user agent (Guideline 4.1) is defined. > See User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0:* > > *“In this document, the term "user agent" is used in two ways: * > > *list of 2 items nesting level 1* > > *1. The software and documentation components that together, conform* > > *to the requirements of this document. This is the most common use of the > term in this document and is the usage in the checkpoints.* > > *2. Any software that retrieves and renders Web content for users. This > may include Web browsers, media players, * > > *plug-ins , and other programs — including assistive technologies — that > help in retrieving and rendering Web content.”* > > https://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#terms > > > > Thus, to fit under Principle 4, the issue must relate to compatibility > with user agents as so defined. > > > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or > confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom > it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail > in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or > take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete > it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > Thank you for your compliance. > ------------------------------ > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 19:12:08 UTC