- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:34:20 -0500
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Stephen Repsher <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, To Henry <shawn@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Jason and all, On 4/24/17, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote: > [Jason] I don't support the "technologies being used" language at all. I > think we should acknowledge that not every technology can be used to meet > WCAG 2.1. If it works with all of the major technologies in use today, I > think this is sufficient; and as I argued earlier, > HTML+CSS+JavaScript+SVG+PDF comprise most of what we need to consider at the > moment. > Future technologies will need to be designed with accessibility in mind, and > WCAG will help to inform those design decisions. I do agree with Gregg that > major user interface revolutions may well be coming, but they need to be > based on implementation technologies that adequately support accessibility. Thank you. What do other people think? Should we remove the "technologies being used" text from the Adapting Text SC? Should we add it to all of our 2.1 SCs to be prepared for the future technology revolution [1]? The "WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria" Wiki page [2] says, "Success Criteria shall: ...Apply across technologies to the greatest extent possible. (Technology-specific issues should usually be addressed in Techniques.) " Thoughts? Kindest Regards, Laura [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0309.html [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 14:34:59 UTC