Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features

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