- From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:10:58 -0400
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, 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>
Sorry Can you include the current wording for the SC you are asking about? g Gregg C Vanderheiden greggvan@umd.edu > On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Gregg, > > So bringing this back to the specific SC: Adapting text. Can you live > without the phrase "technologies being used" being in the SC's text? > > Thank you. > > Kindest Regards, > Laura > > > On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >> Again - I agree that the phrase would be nice to avoid. >> >> But for some (and only some) SC you may find that you need to have it or the >> SC will fail general applicability. >> >> The answer isnt in general comments like this — but in the exploration of >> specific SC. For the most part - that has not been necessary. >> >> And discussion of specific SC are underway now. >> >> But if you have a blanket “we will never use this” then you might block >> some SC(s) from being able to get in at all. >> >> So I suggest not arguing in the abstract but rather on a case by case basis. >> It is not needed by most all but may be needed by one or another. So >> lets see. >> >> >> g >> >> >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Repsher, Stephen J >>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote: >>> >>> Jason has pinpointed the exact reason why I oppose any language that gives >>> an author power to simply skip over an SC just because they use a >>> technology with poor accessibility support. Any exceptions should have >>> clear restrictions and backup accessibility support (as does "Images of >>> Text", for example). For WCAG 2.1, with or without the language is >>> probably not the question. Rather, what is the compromising language for >>> now until we get to Silver? >>> >>> It seems to me that we could argue all day and night about which web >>> technologies are "major", but in order to talk about future-proofing we >>> need to discuss responsibility. And currently, the responsibility chain >>> has a very weak link from author to user that is only going to get more >>> important to strengthen as we talk about adaptation, linearization, >>> personalization, and other needs. >>> >>> Authors have full control over their content, including which web >>> technologies they choose and adhering to appropriate standards. The WCAG >>> buck stops there obviously in its current form. The problem is that even >>> if UAAG (and ATAG) were married to it today, trying to remain >>> technology-agnostic would result in the same core issue: no responsibility >>> is formally placed on web technology developers (at least not outside the >>> W3C). If we really want to produce guidelines which are both independent >>> of current technology & cognizant of future ones, then they are going to >>> have to draw a line in the sand somehow (e.g. only conform with >>> technologies formally reviewed and approved by the W3C or otherwise >>> conform to the nonexistent Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines). >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] >>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 10:08 AM >>> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Gregg C Vanderheiden >>> <greggvan@umd.edu> >>> Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick >>> <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; Repsher, >>> Stephen J <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> >>> Subject: RE: Must "technologies being used" be in a SC's text, if that SC >>> has support in 2 technologies? >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] >>>> If that is the case, do we need the "technologies being used" language >>>> on all of our SCs? >>> [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. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> ________________________________ >> >> > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 24 April 2017 21:11:37 UTC