Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS

Why thank you David.
Still I am surprised this seems well new?
Perhaps you folks work so hard that you do not realize the scope of your 
reputation, and therefore your position where  addressing some of this is 
concerned?
but I am leaving such for my reply to Patrick.

Karen
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, David Best wrote:

> Karen, well said. I was about to respond, but you took the words right off
> my keyboard.  :-)
>
> David Best, Advisory IT Specialist and Accessibility Consultant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> From:	Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> To:	"Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Cc:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Date:	07/24/2012 02:21 PM
> Subject:	Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS
>
>
>
>
> a comment below...
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2012 17:32, Ryan Jean wrote:
> x>>  I?m not sure how to ask this, but does JAWS have a limit for
> meeting the
>>>  criteria for WCAG 2.0? In other words, does JAWS 12.0 meet the
> criteria?
>> Your question is confusing two concepts: JAWS/IE/etc are User Agents, and
>
>> you're asking how they meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines?
> That
>> doesn't make sense.
>
> Indeed it does not, however this is a mistake that is far too often made.
> Those who are responsible for access, do not fully understand what it
> means,
> finds a single individual  experiencing a certain disability often
> blindness, asks what they use, and then check based on what they use.
> lets face it the disability experience has poor pr and rich stereotypes,
> with many still stuck at...what do you mean disabled person using a
> computer?
> Many populations get skipped all together where access is concerned
> because of the miss focused only on vision loss.
> Many end users make the same mistake, that their screen reader is
> responsible for how web content is presented, not that the concepts are
> different, or that the site Creator must build an open site.
> My understanding is that the wcag is basically road construction
> information.  you build the road correctly and the user agents should be
> able to swing it.  Which is why basic road building rules are n place and
> basic browsers recommended for testing so some foundation exists.
> still this question illustrates what I personally think is a serious
> situation here.
> All of you work so very very hard.  i sit and read in total awe and
> respect
> of and appreciation  for what you put into creating these standards.
> ...then I watch all that energy wasted preaching to the choir!
> What I mean by this is that there is no, or not that I have ever noticed
> major effort to educate the general public, those who may be small
> business owners learning about wcag 2.0 for the first time, those iin
> political arena who are being told that this is the standard they are
> to follow, even the end user who thinks because it is what they are told,
> that it is the screen reader's job to fix the website....in fact those who
> are supposed to create an open door say as much.
>
> There is even a tool marketed called essential accessibility that
> represents itself as the only thing you need for anyone regardless of
> disability experience to use your site...no site design creation with
> access in mind required.
> I need not share that the tool fails at this.  But those choosing to add
> it work from the idea that they are insuring an open door so never check
> again.  after all every disabled person lives the same right?...i. am.
> not. kidding.
>
> This frankly is due to little effort on anyone uniform part to bridge
> the gap information wise.
> Mind if I ask why this is?
> I am sure all of you are far too intelligent to think that most sites are
> created by those in your own industry?
> Especially given how the standards are written in your industry jargon?
> will wait for some thoughts before I share more,
> Karen
>
> WCAG specifically deals with how content should be
>> authored, not what user agents should do with it. For that, you need to
> look
>> at UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines).
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
>> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
>> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>