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

Hi David,

I don't understand your question, sorry.

JF

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:16 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
wrote:

> hmmm...
>
> What do you think WCAG 2.0 requires?
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@
> interactiveaccessibility.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with John.  We should not say that they have to have it working
>> on one mobile technology.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is also not an SC.  We are proposing adding clarification language
>> to the Understanding Requirement 2" just before the Notes at the end of the
>> section. https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#
>> uc-conformance-requirements-head to clarify that different viewport
>> sizes also need to conform to WCAG SC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, July 14, 2017 1:47 PM
>> *To:* David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
>> *Cc:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: Moving Issues 62, 63, 71 to the conformance section
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> > If they can demonstrate the site working on one mobile technology stack
>> that should be sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, I have to *strongly *disagree with that. The W3C has a
>> long-standing policy of two independent implementations, and I would expect
>> we maintain that minimum requirement going forward.
>>
>>
>>
>> I cannot support a SC that is targeted towards addressing an issue (or
>> issues) with a specific piece of hardware or software (or platform), and if
>> we cannot demonstrate that the requirement can be achieved on more than one
>> platform, then we cannot make it a SC Requirement today (hard as that may
>> be to accept). As somebody once noted
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/blog/what-are-WCAG-success-criteria.html#p7>:
>>
>> Success Criteria are technology neutral
>>
>>
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Try as I might, I've not gotten VoiceOver to work on my Samsung Galaxy
>> yet, and I don't think I ever will...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is shorthand, however, I don't think we can require developers to
>> support every environment. Especially buggy environments ...  (such as
>> Talkback/Android)
>>
>>
>>
>> If they can demonstrate the site working on one mobile technology stack
>> that should be sufficient.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:37 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> As an aside...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The original intention of the SC is to require VoiceOver compatibility
>> for mobile views
>>
>>
>>
>> Try as I might, I've not gotten VoiceOver to work on my Samsung Galaxy
>> yet, and I don't think I ever will...
>>
>>
>>
>> (I realize that this was more "shorthand" than anything else, but we also
>> need to be mindful that we are looking for functional outcomes, and not SC
>> that address software shortcomings with specific tools - which I know David
>> knows. 😀)
>>
>>
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:04 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> The original intention of the SC is to require VoiceOver compatibility
>> for mobile views, especially inaccessible hamburger menus. Personally, I'd
>> like to simply see a qualification to WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 Conformance that a
>> page includes changes caused by breakpoints.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your wording requires ALL AT to be tested and we found that to be a
>> limitless scope of every AT available in the Apple store. We could narrow
>> the scope by limiting the AT the way we did in the SC proposals to
>> "platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures". This is really
>> the crux of the problem as we saw it on the task force.
>>
>>
>>
>> ***
>>
>> If (1) the content includes features that adapt the presentation or
>> functionality for specific hardware or software environments (e.g., as
>> rendered on devices with different screen sizes), and (2) a different
>> platform assistive technology that remaps touch gestures is used on those
>> 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 know its a mouthful but if its accurate we can do a plain language pass
>> later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:46 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is interesting. I don’t think screen size is the right concept to
>> use for purposes of of the clarification that we need. Also, this proposal
>> doesn’t actually clarify the application of the “accessibility-supported”
>> requirement by asserting the relevant set of user agents and assistive
>> technologies that need to be compatible with the ways of using technologies
>> relied on to meet the success criteria. I appreciate its simplicity,
>> however.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2017 4:39 PM
>> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Moving Issues 62, 63, 71 to the conformance section
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's another option which might be easier:
>>
>>
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
>>
>> "If components change form based on screen size, they remain
>> programmatically determinable and keyboard operable."
>>
>>
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
>>
>> It would be placed after the last paragraph in the section "Understanding
>> Requirement 2" just before the Notes at the end of the section.
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conforma
>> nce.html#uc-conformance-requirements-head
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FUNDERSTANDING-WCAG20%2Fconformance.html%23uc-conformance-requirements-head&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=OzSa6RsINaMaOkGRz5hP6NJHqSU8BoO86HE7OGWPrVw%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>>
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=EB3oYNzfR2hkc1qw6IbuaCsDcEc8ZU06qljcnuXQQAo%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=QtuGL8qoBb92JkUa87O%2Bt6l0JmOqZxrzu5lI4GuGy5M%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> GitHub
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=vyZLBGm1BRgreiXBLdYxV4z%2Bnz32zcW9yZ8te9QQCsI%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=uSTGQHJwALkXIBDE0NfG%2BrfFzN9pAH4kXR5YNYXnwH0%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>>
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cc5e18b0d103d4893abe408d4ca2f3ddf%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636355751636405902&sdata=arDC0ucVLw4b1n%2BnUUjj4ZfdTTpk3XOuENhWpddbRPA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:50 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, David – see further comments below.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
>>
>> I like your second condition, adding an "AND" for different AT in those
>> environments.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Regarding the first condition, Gregg expressed concern regarding using
>> broad strokes for the customized view. He suggested we limit it to "size".
>> He was nervous that there might be customized delivery of content such
>> information spoken in a car etc, that by its very nature could not meet the
>> conformance language and inhibit adoption of the standard.
>>
>> *[Jason] I would like to see good examples of this that would meet both
>> of my conditions and which would raise difficulties.*
>>
>>
>>
>> So if I was to take your proposal and adjust it to size, it would look
>> something like this.
>>
>>
>>
>> If (1) the content includes features that adapt its presentation or
>> functionality based on screen sizes in specific hardware or software
>> environments, 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 adaptations
>> are provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, arguing against myself, your proposal  does limit the scope to
>> environments with different AT. If there is no AT for that environment,
>> then maybe your language is OK.
>>
>> *[Jason] Yes, I’m in favor of mentioning screen size, if at all, only as
>> an example. Both of the conditions do need to be met for the proposal to
>> apply, and it only clarifies (at most, expands) the nature of the
>> compatibility guarantee.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> John Foliot
>>
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> John Foliot
>>
>> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>>
>> Deque Systems Inc.
>>
>> john.foliot@deque.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Received on Friday, 14 July 2017 18:54:28 UTC