- From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:38:39 -0700
- To: Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>
- Cc: Chaals from Yandex <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC9gL77wKMiQUqYK=AH2XEFBS99fROF5AApoUS0kkyE=-GT=2A@mail.gmail.com>
Olaf, I was going to wait for other comment to answer them all, but the question Olaf asks is very important. The question you ask is what is lacking? The answer law. If there was a federal rule, VIP would suddenly be well funded, and Adobe would fix its reader. If there was a rule, HTML 4 and 5 documents would be authored so that alternative style would be straight forward and semantically faithful. The problem with AT for low vision without a legal rule is that it comes and goes. There have been numerous false starts at reasonable accommodation. Vicki L Hanson, WebAdaptToMe, was a phenomenal contribution. With no law, it was not given the support it needed to succeed from IBM. With a 508 rules that directly stated the rules needed to support low vision products like this would survive. Microsoft Windows used to have an accessible interface with its adjustable fonts and colors for menu, tool tips and other UI elements. Since they were never featured as solving problems for low vision or meeting a federal rule they could be dropped or abandoned altogether. Over the past five years Windows and Windows products have become increasingly unfriendly for low vision without realizing they were doing it. There was no malice, they just did not know the value for low vision for what they had. So this is why we need 508 rules. Without rules features that support low vision are just passing features that can be dropped without consideration of the impact. With a rule, developers will author products and identify features that meet 508 rules. These features will have to be part of a VPAT. Most people with low vision bounce from AT to AT. The AT built for us is not nearly adequate. We ovten use undocumented accessibility feature of products until they are dropped. Sometimes features like the old Windows customizable interface were used to great advantage without the manufacturer knowing millions of people were using these features for basic things like reading., as an AT. A federal rules would give people with low vision stability. We would not have to live in fear of a manufacturer dropping an essential feature in ignorance of our needs. I believe W3C has gone as far as the organization can go when trying to bring industry forward voluntarily. The 200% limit an acceptance of horizontal scrolling in WCAG witnesses that fact. There needs to be law to push disability support a step further. Guidelines give direction. Law gives teeth. Wayne On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com> wrote: > I would argue that (free of charge) tools exist that accommodate some of > the needs of people with low vision when consuming tagged PDF content. The > most specific tool (highly customisable / adjustable for low vision users) > is VIP PDF Reader, see > http://www.access-for-all.ch/en/pdf-lab/500-vip-pdf-reader-e.html . > Another tool requires Adobe Acrobat, but itself is free of charge: callas > pdfGoHTML, see > http://www.callassoftware.com/callas/doku.php/en:products:pdfgohtml - it > transcodes a tagged PDF to HTML and opens it in the default browser (where > one can use various mechanisms to access the content). > > So, just to make **me** understand: what's missing? > > Olaf > > > On 29 Mar 2015, at 11:35, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: > > Hi Wayne, > > 28.03.2015, 04:34, "Wayne Dick" <waynedick@knowbility.org>: > > Some have asked for me to post my written comments to the US Access Board. > Here are the written comments I posted: > > http://nosetothepage.org/508/Testimony.html > > I am asking the Access Board to override the rules for low vision based on > WCAG level AA. This is so that people with low vision have a chance at > receiving reasonable accommodation. > > > A priori, your statement makes a lot of sense. > > And suggests that there are some concrete things we should be looking at > as requirements for WCAG. Certainly the 200% cap on zoom requirements seems > entirely arbitrary. > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com > > > >
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2015 17:39:08 UTC