Re: 508 Refresh and Reasonable Accommodation for Low Vision

Mike,
Thanks for the references and the identification of some of the 
requirements that are address in WCAG 2.0..

Wayne,
we need some more data and recommended specifications, such as when do we 
specify word wrapping?  For example:
        1. Desktop: for desktop designs there are several industry 
accepted breakpoints for design and testing when a site is zoom beyond 2X, 
should the text wrap vs scroll left right? 2X of 1024, 1280, 1600 or 1920? 
  2X of what is unacceptable to how many of whom to scroll left right? 
        2. Tablet design have another breakpoint.
        3. Smart phones have another more narrow breakpoint.

This survey data and trends will help us specify when (today, future)  is 
it desired to design accordingly. Example techniques that demonstrate this 
desired user experience for low vision users could be added today into 
WCAG 2.0 recommended techniques - nothing should hold it/us back from 
doing recommended techniques.  I haven't seen any recommended techniques, 
do you have some to contribute? 

Would the problems experienced by users with low vision be solved by 
simply specifying the most narrow breakpoint - that being smart phones? In 
other words, if you got every capable website to serve you their smart 
phone optimized web page/app, but have it displayed on your low vision 
optimized full size monitor, would your user experience be optimized or at 
least more better?

The Access Board and the WCAG working group need some proposed 
specifications to work with and some benefit analysis - who and how many 
are benefited. 

But, and this is a big but, 
now is not the time to slow down the 508 Refreesh.  The accessibility 
community has been complaining that it has taken too long already, we 
can't talk out of both sides of our mouths and make demands to slow it 
down again if we don't have even recommend techniques to offer, survey 
data, and economic benefits - all required to make a specification (or 
accessibility standard) a regulation.

http://www.access-board.gov/news/1717-board-proposes-updated-ict-accessibility-requirements
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,  my comments are my personal comments, not those of IBM or 
the US Access Baord



From:   Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
To:     Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>, WAI Interest Group 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc:     Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date:   02/18/2015 09:22 AM
Subject:        Re: 508 Refresh and Reasonable Accommodation for Low 
Vision



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 | pragmatica11y
This 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