- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 12:17:58 -0400
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- CC: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2271C9F16E42BA3D8700FD3FE380@phx.gbl>
Anyone know the status of indie UI? Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:29 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] > > On 04/07/2016 15:22, Alastair Campbell wrote: > > > Secondly, if the user is in a mobile context (e.g. screenreader on a > > > smartphone) then they will be in the small screen version regardless > > > of zoom and require access to the same content & functionality. > > > Therefore all sizes of a responsive design must have equivalent > > > content & functionality. > > > > But Adam's point (which I also agree with in this context) is that > looking purely at > > the "all users that are on a mobile device", they all get the equivalent > > experience, regardless of their ability/disability. > > So saying that a priori a reduced functionality small screen site is > discriminating > > against users with disabilities on a mobile site isn't quite accurate. > > [Jason] I agree. Further, if we assume for the sake of discussion that the > entire site conforms to WCAG 2.0, then there's obviously no question of > conforming alternate versions, hence no requirement of equivalent content > and functionality established by WCAG as currently written. > > > > But, as already pointed out, since the small screen version can also be > triggered > > in the desktop+zoom+small browser window scenario, THAT is a concern. > > > [Jason] Yes it is. If it's still possible to access all of the content and > functionality by invoking links, menu options or other UI controls, then > I'm less concerned by these scenarios. The content and functionality might > not all be on the same Web page as it is in the "large screen" view, but at > least it's available. > Where some of it is missing altogether, the user who seeks magnification > without horizontal scrolling is disadvantaged. Personalization techniques > could distinguish between the mobile device user, the large font user, and > the person who needs an uncluttered interface for cognitive reasons; but we > can't require this degree of personalization until we put the necessary > standards in place. There is scope within the ARIA working group to take up > the task from where the IndieUI working group finished, but this effort > hasn't started yet due to the necessary focus on completing ARIA 1.1. > > ________________________________ > > 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. > > ________________________________ >
Received on Monday, 4 July 2016 16:18:30 UTC