- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:53:06 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 15/07/2016 16:46, Sailesh Panchang wrote: > An SC is needed along the lines of: > • Applications shall not disrupt or disable activated features of > other products that are identified as accessibility features, where > those features are developed and documented according to industry > standards. > • Applications also shall not disrupt or disable activated features of > any operating system that are identified as accessibility features > where the application programming interface for those accessibility > features has been documented by the manufacturer of the operating > system and is available to the product developer. > [Ref: S508 1194.21 Para (b) Softtware Apps] > > This is relevant because authors misapply techniques or implement > them incorrectly / incompletely leading to confusion and > inconsistencies. Related, there is a stub of a proposed new SC and a technique for it in the Mobile Accessibility TF document "[Proposed New MOBILE Success Criteria] 4.1.3 Non-interference of AT: Content does not interfere with default functionality of platform level assistive technology Mobile Technique proposed for WCAG 4.1.3 M007: Supporting the characteristic properties of the platform (e.g. zoom, larger font, captions)" I'm not quite sure it belongs in mobile itself (the technique probably, but not the overarching SC, so I filed a bug against that. https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/5 Wondering if your idea of non-interference could cover the aspect that the Mobile TF wants to address (such as "don't prevent zooming") - though some of this feels almost like it would/could also belong more to low vision/COGA TF work But, just like Alistair, I'm currently struggling to come up with many situations where an author willingly interferes with AT (and it's not just authoring errors/misapplied techniques, in which case it's difficult to say to a developer "don't user the wrong things/don't make mistakes", as no author sets out to do this, so as far as they're concerned they're doing the right thing and would self-assess themselves as following the proposed wording above, I'd say). P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 16:53:29 UTC