RE: Mechanism Disclaimer

> In the low-vision context most people don’t use small mobile devices simply because they don’t provide a usable interface for them, at least on the more moderate-to-severe end of the scale. (There are of course exceptions & exceptional people!)

I disagree with this.  My experiences have been that they are used.  Do you have any research on the topic?  What do you define as small size?  I see people with low vision using cell phones and tablets all of the time.  Perhaps your experiences are with a particular demographic such as people over a certain age that confounds the data.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
See you at CSUN in March!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:19 AM
To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

Patrick wrote:
> I'm wondering what the relationship to, say, native apps would be, 
> where the OS likely doesn't provide mechanism, and authors WOULD have 
> to code something up themselves - or were these exempt even in the 
> current wording?)
   
Well, we’re covering web-content rather than native apps, but I think the point stands because extensions are not commonly supported on mobile browsers. (NB: Bookmarklets work on mobile, except for sites with CSP.)

There’s been a lot of discussion about that, with some justifiable resistance to including exceptions for user agents.

My view is that if the author tests their *content* for handling font-family changes, it doesn’t matter if some user-agents don’t support doing. It is a content guideline, and it is up to the user to have an agent that supports their needs. 
I think the proposed wording fits with that?

In the low-vision context most people don’t use small mobile devices simply because they don’t provide a usable interface for them, at least on the more moderate-to-severe end of the scale. (There are of course exceptions & exceptional people!)

However, I’m keen to translate user-requirements to content guidelines, and this seems like a necessary step to overcome the “OMG Widgets!” response. (That’s not a criticism, that’s the reaction I had initially to.)

Just because something isn’t supported on mobile doesn’t mean we shouldn’t improve things on desktop, assuming that it doesn’t make the mobile experience worse for everyone else. I think that applies to Resize content and several other SCs as well.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Friday, 20 January 2017 16:20:57 UTC