Re: accessibility supported questions

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