RE: Moving Issues 62, 63, 71 to the conformance section

  *   if a user actively chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or personalizes the state of the page for accessibility reasons, this new state does not necessarily need to conform, because the conforming version can be reached by undoing the setting.

I can’t agree with this.  What this is saying is that if I adjust the page to 200% zoom to read the content and it is no longer accessible that is ok because I chose to zoom in.  You are telling me I can use the unzoomed accessible version of the page – but it’s not accessible because I can’t because the text can’t be resized to 200%.

Jonathan


From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:00 PM
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Moving Issues 62, 63, 71 to the conformance section



From: David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:28 PM
The proposal is to sum up all of these in the conformance section by ensuring that the definition of a page, includes different versions of the page that are delivered based on the size of the screen. Here's a proposal.

A paragraph would be added to the conformance section something like this:

********************

The full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically generated by the
​content
 for various screen sizes. Each of these variations (or their respective conforming alternate versions) needs to conform in order for the entire page to conform. However, if a user actively chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or personalizes the state of the page for accessibility reasons, this new state does not necessarily need to conform, because the conforming version can be reached by undoing the setting.

****************
​****​

[Jason] I support the principle of the above, but I think we may need to rework the text and the focus somewhat. A clearer principle, which I began to articulate yesterday, would be as follows.
If (1) the content includes features that enhance its presentation or functionality in specific hardware or software environments (e.g., as rendered on devices with different screen sizes), and (2) different user agents or assistive technologies are in use in each of these respective environments, then the ways in which technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria are only accessibility-supported if they are compatible with user agents and assistive technologies in each of the environments for which enhancements are provided.
I’m not sure whether we would then need an exception for personalization introduced for purposes of improved accessibility, since in those cases, it doesn’t seem to me that both of the above conditions would be met. Note that the second condition (the relevance of different UA/AT software) greatly reduces the scope of the situations to which the proposal would apply, but it isn’t confined to screen size as in David’s proposal. Also, my proposal would qualify the discussion of accessibility-supported ways of using technology either in the Conformance section or in the glossary definition.
The above text is a rough first draft to which improvements are most welcome.

________________________________

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.

________________________________