- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:53:39 -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, Thank you very much for the advice. I've asked on the Oracle comment if there are any technologies beyond the HTML stack and PDF that they are concerned about. https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/222#issuecomment-297448896 Kindest Regards, Laura On 4/26/17, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: > I don’t know the answer to your question. > > As I mentioned in a provious post — I do everything in HTML 5 and JS these > days. > > But I don’t judge the web by what I do. > > I know that Flash is deprecated by Apple iOS and someone mentioned that one > browser was blocking it. > > I didn’t know that JAVA was in web content (it is used on servers and > desktops but we are only talking about web content - and I don’t know about > its use there). > > The questions are — > what technologies are being used on new and updated web pages. > (lets assume old pages won’t be changed by WCAG 2.1 so no reason to take > them into account - unless updated) > will new web technologies in future all use style sheets > remember that there is a huge focus / effort on intelligent agent and verbal > interfaces going forward. > > I don’t know the answer to either. > > Who might know? > > people who consult on web page design across many vendors will know if there > are ANY people / companies developing pages using anything besides HTML and > PDF. > Note — what MOST people do is not relevant. If there are SOME that use > other technologies we either have to cover those technologies — or we are > effectively barring them from using those technologies or barring them from > even being able to conform. > Companies working on new web technologies and AIs and verbal interfaces can > comment better on the future. > > > Wish I knew the answers — but I don’t. Do others? (again - don’t reply > with MOST — we need to know if ANY — for the reasons above) > > > thx > > g > > > Gregg C Vanderheiden > greggvan@umd.edu > > > >> On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> 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 > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 15:54:17 UTC