- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:20:04 -0500
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "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>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, By "sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different technologies" do you mean we must have not only HTML and PDF techniques but also: * Java techniques * Silverlight techniques * Flash techniques Thank you. Kindest Regards, Laura On 4/26/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: > > I think the question is premature until we have > created sufficient techniques for meeting it with all the different > technologies > have proven to ourselves that the technologies will work across all page > types. > > if these are both done - and the words don’t have to be revised after or as > part of doing them — then yes. But without that info - I don’t know the > answer. > > g > > Gregg C Vanderheiden > greggvan@umd.edu > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Gregg and everyone, >> >> I'll ask this question again in a slightly different manner: >> >> Are you or anyone else not able to live with the following for the >> Adapting Text SC's intro sentence? >> >> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can >> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or >> functionality." (Then the bullet list). >> >> Kindest regards, >> Laura >> >> >> On 4/24/17, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Gregg, >>> >>> Quite a few are listed on the options page [1] for instance, the last >>> one at AA is Option L: >>> >>> "Except for images of text and captions, text styles of the page can >>> be overridden as follows with no loss of essential content or >>> functionality." (Then the bullet list). >>> >>> If you can't live with that particular one, Is there any proposal on >>> that page, that doesn't have the "technology being used" language that >>> you could live with? >>> >>> Kindest Regards, >>> Laura >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Issue_78_Options >>> >>> On 4/24/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Laura L. Carlson >>> >> >> >> -- >> Laura L. Carlson > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 14:20:48 UTC