David MacDonald wrote: > I would not pass something that is not accessibility supported. > "... the Success Criteria require that something be done in the Web > content that would make it possible for assistive technologies to > successfully present the content's information to the user. " > https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head > > I understand in Silver there is a proposal to change this and to move > to a more standards based approach where everybody builds to the > standard and if the AT or Browsers don't do their part then it still > passes. But that is not WCAG, which requires that conforming > techniques work with the AT and the browsers which are depended upon > for conformance. WCAG 2.0 requires real world current benefit to users > rather than an aspirational hope that something will happen in the > future with an SC. WCAG SCs for 2.0 were not created with the "build > it and they will come" approach although this 2.1 SC starts to hint in > that direction. I hear what you are saying David - but we are in a chicken and egg scenario here - so I think it is reasonable to add meta data that supports a personalisation path (that will hopefully get adopted by AT vendors/browsers etc) but may not yet be broadly supported. Thanks -- Joshue O Connor Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Monday, 21 January 2019 09:17:27 UTC