Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS

hi karen,

>This frankly is due to little effort on anyone uniform part to bridge the
gap information wise.

There is lots of effort on the part of lots of people, a good deal of which
is co-ordinated via the W3C.

Specifications and standards are not generally written by the "W3C" they
are written by members of the standards community , the W3C provides
resources to facilitate the devlopment. The W3C is not designed to or
portrays itself as an organization that delivers answers on a plate.
It is an organization that provides a framework for a wide range of
stakeholders to participate in developing the standards and guidance the
web communities need.

If you see a need get involved, that's what many people do, largely on a
voluntary basis.


regards
Steve

On 24 July 2012 19:14, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> wrote:

>
> 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/<http://flickr.com/photos/redux/>
>> ______________________________**______________________________**__
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> ______________________________**______________________________**__
>>
>>
>>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html