- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:29:37 +0100
- To: "Stanzel, Susan - Kansas City, MO" <susan.stanzel@kcc.usda.gov>
- Cc: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
hi susan WAI-ARIA Overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria Introduction to WAI-ARIA http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/ regards steve 2009/4/1 Stanzel, Susan - Kansas City, MO <susan.stanzel@kcc.usda.gov>: > Hi Everyone, > > Since I have followed this list for a long time and know that questions are always invited, can someone tell me what WAI-ARIA is? Is it twitter? While I am at it, why would I want to get on twitter? > > Susie Stanzel > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steven Faulkner > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 7:25 AM > To: Ramón Corominas > Cc: Phill Jenkins; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: accessibility supported questions > > Hi Ramon, > just to pick up on this statement > >>It seems also that WAI-ARIA is been supported -more or less- by major browsers, but we should take in account the AT support for this technology, that (in my >opinion) is very poor. > > For JAWS, Window Eyes, NVDA and Orca at least, support for WAI-ARIA is > good and getting better. > > for example: http://live.gnome.org/Orca/Firefox/ARIAWidgets details > ARIA support in Orca > > regards > steve faulkner > > 2009/4/1 Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>: >> Hello again. >> >>> Thanks for sharing your opinion, but "enough" and "cost" is a policy >>> discussion in my pinion, not a technical software engineering discussion. >>> "Costs" and "enough" is only mentioned WCAG 2.0 (see Note 2) as one of 4 >>> choices (2d), but I do agree it should be part of the policy discussion. >> >> So let's see what are the "technical" choices you mention... >> >> "2. The Web content technology must have accessibility-supported user agents >> that are available to users. This means that at least one of the following >> four statements is true: >> a. The technology is supported natively in widely-distributed user agents >> that are also accessibility supported (such as HTML and CSS);" >> >> This is not -and as far as I know won't be- the case for Adobe PDF and >> Flash, since they require a plug-in or different application. In my opinion >> Adobe Reader itself (not the plug-in) can't be strictly considered as a true >> "user agent", since it does not *retrieve* web content, although I could >> accept Reader as a kind of external add-on to the user agent that renders >> /downloaded/ web content. >> >> It seems also that WAI-ARIA is been supported -more or less- by major >> browsers, but we should take in account the AT support for this technology, >> that (in my opinion) is very poor. >> >> "OR b. The technology is supported in a widely-distributed plug-in that is >> also accessibility supported;" >> >> (and I think we should implicitly add "and distributed in an accesible >> manner") >> >> This would then be the case for Flash and PDF. As Matt has stated, PDF seems >> to be well-supported in a wide variety of OS, user agents, and AT, so I >> suppose that if content is well-formed, we can safely accept PDF as an >> "accessibility supported" technology; anyway, I think we must still keep in >> mind that most of the users won't have the latest version of the OS, user >> agent or AT, so we will still be excluding people. But yes, technically >> right. >> >> In respect to Flash, I only can say that all "accessible" Flash content that >> I've been able to test only renders ok with some combinations of Windows + >> IE + JAWS, and inserted in a particular way in the HTML. Perhaps its real >> support is better than I can know and all content I've tested is badly done; >> this would be great news for me, so I could then accept Flash as "safe" and >> concentrate efforts in study and develop recommendations to generate good >> content. >> >> It would be nice if Adobe developed official Techniques for Flash and PDF to >> be included in the WCAG documents (perhaps they already exist somewhere?). >> >> My apologizes to Matt if it seemed that I rejected PDF, Flash, or any other >> technology as accessibility supported. It was my fault to mention specific >> technologies, since I'm only copying WCAG when they state that a technology >> must have support to be considered supported (very logical, I think). >> >> "OR c. The content is available in a closed environment, such as a >> university or corporate network, where the user agent required by the >> technology and used by the organization is also accessibility supported;" >> >> Not the case, since we are talking about general content in the World Wide >> Web. >> >> "OR d. The user agent(s) that support the technology are accessibility >> supported and are available for download or purchase in a way that: >> * does not cost a person with a disability any more than a person without a >> disability and >> * is as easy to find and obtain for a person with a disability as it is for >> a person without disabilities." >> >> So for widespread web content, any technology (no names here) that is only >> compatible with certain OS, user agent, and/or AT (not widely supported), we >> should not be punished for suffering a disability. >> >> Am I right in my interpretation now? Which technologies will you consider as >> "accessibility supported", then? >> >> Regards, >> Ramón. >> >> >> > > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG Europe > Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium > > www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org > Web Accessibility Toolbar - > http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 13:30:13 UTC