W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: 508 Refresh and Reasonable Accommodation for Low Vision

From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:03:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <483188603.859385.1424271817226.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Here's a link to an article by Denis Boudreau (inspired in part by a conversation with Wayne Dick) that addresses the issue quite well:
Why Browser Zoom Testing Sucks for Accessibility | pragmatica11y

|   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Why Browser Zoom Testing Sucks for Accessibility | pragmatica11yThis post was motivated by a discussion that took place while the EasyChecks document was being developed over at the Education and Outreach Working Group.  |
|  |
| View on www.denisboudreau.org | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


I know we've had conversations in the WCAG 2.0 Working Group about clarifying this issue, and Understanding SC 1.4.4 (http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-scale.html)   and F69 Failure of SC 1.4.4 when resizing...text 200% (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F69.html) seem to address it directly.
So I wonder if the issue is not so much the WCAG 2.0 text as lack of awareness among developers?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Mike
 

     On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:23 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com> wrote:
   

 The blind just do better lobbying than any other group of people with some functional limitation.
And low vision people might still be better off than some of the other groups of people with some functional limitation as they do better lobbying than some other groups. 
Maybe at least various groups of people with some functional limitation need to align their lobbying? One of the most disabling aspects [pun intended] in the effort for equal access comes from those who need it most (or try to support them).
In general [at least in the context of IT, web, mobile, and related technology] I'd recommend to say good bye to the concept of "person with disability" and focus on "functional limitations" independent of any specific person or group of persons, along the lines of the ICF (international classification of functioning) by the WHO (World Health Organisation), and then just work along the list of limitations in functioning, and mandate that each can be addressed reasonably well [and introduce concepts like continuous improvement - Rome wasn't built in a day, but building had to start at some point and had to keep going until it was completed; that it takes time can't be avoided]. Another area to get over with is to insist that something must be supported in existing technology - this just discourages new [and much needed] developments. We'll be dancing around JAWS for another decade or two if we keep doing this.

Olaf
PS: @Wayne: if you included an introductory sentence or tag line at the start of your article, it would be easier for potential readers to understand what your article is about. Something like "thoughts by a vision impaired, but not blind, user of web technology vis-à-vis the upcoming revision of section 508" right after the title of the article.

On 18 Feb 2015, at 04:27, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org> wrote:

The following Article is for the 508 Refresh. I recommend going beyond WCAG 2.0 by requiring enlargement with word wrapping.  

See http://nosetothepage.org/Articles/A2.html

Wayne




   
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 15:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:54 UTC