- From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:34:47 -0700
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SCzpXiF-q6N+zAWn4py=YWEyVdPYDCJRvPNGoXrXwm6yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Today technology Independence means that a person with a disability will only have access to the least capable systems even if their professional software runs on a system with greater capability. The problem is that we are back in the WCAG 1.0 era when it comes to user agents and platforms. Platform application developers sure know the size of their target and they design for it. This creates vast difference in capabilities of user agents much like the cowboy era of the 90's. We are back to when a user agent becomes available, because we have platforms where no user agent is available. Now, what is realistic. Holding to technology independence when all support software is technology dependent, or modifying the principle to allow for profound differences in user agents. An HTML developer on a desktop / laptop OS like Windows, lenux or OSX can build a much more visually accessible interface than a developer on IOS or android. It is not ethical to limit disability access to the least capable system. People with low vision need access to effective large print. That means word wrapping and a character buffer than can hold 40 to 80 characters (that is not exact 35 -70 might be it). That is completely commutable with pixels. If it can be computed and implemented then authors should do it. Standard techniques are available. With full screen access that can be achieved with 600% (starting resolution 1280 x 720 16/9 aspect ratio). Do we deny users this level of access because IOS and Android based user agents cannot do it. I don't see how a person could earn their living as a computer professional if their access to computing was limited to the capabilities of an IOS or Android system.
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 20:35:21 UTC