W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

(unknown charset) RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: (unknown charset) Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:23:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) Howard Leicester <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>
cc: (unknown charset) 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <ryladog@gmail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1608241500410.23620@server2.shellworld.net>
Hi Howard,
These are two completely different issues.
The questions for NZ  were asked on behalf of an individual who lives there 
with a government employer refusing to provide workplace accommodations.
My own revisiting question sort of extends one I asked about a month ago 
when I was seeking a Canadian member, and is a personal one.
I am probably  over preparing for this mediation.
Still the application, before the Ontario Human Rights tribunal, involves 
a very large Canadian retail store drugstore chain who has the oldest 
shopping membership program in Canada.
To participate in the program you must first get a physical card, and track 
the membership offers on line and via email communications.
Among the many violations, the emails  for the program actually require you 
to load images to read offers, have  almost no alt tags, "your coupon," 
"Link"
and include emails that threaten to remove you from the program if you 
do not load images or click on links...that is a direct quotation.
Ontario has two different laws governing inclusion, the human rights code 
which has a complaint process and the accessibility for Ontarians with 
Disabilities act, which does not, unless this has changed recently.
The latter laws incorporate WACG 2.0 into their integrated standers, with 
said company claiming they are already compliant.
Oh one more thing the actual button for logging into the program requires a 
physical mouse click.
In their latest effort, we return to mediation tomorrow, the company is 
claiming  that they can require me to use certain tools, some of which would 
actually do me physical harm.

When I asked about Java scripting a few years back, some here spoke of the 
technical baseline clause,  which a company may use for its own staff, 
since they are providing the tools, but not the general public.
Yes there is a question here.
Is that last sentence still the case?
i. e.requiring a person with a disability to use a specific tool on a 
public site  is noncompliance?
thanks Howard!
Kare


On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Howard Leicester wrote:

> Hi Kare,
>
> I know I got in trouble last time - for no reason!.
>
> But I think most may be wondering the point of your key question!
>
> I didn't understand it, but my previous email had an answer on all things (from NHS England).
> So question to you is:
> What's the statement and issue proving problems, and which country do you think it's raising a problem?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: 24 August 2016 18:42
> To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?
>
> Hi there,
> The technical baseline clause is a part of wacg, or was, with the aoda incorporating wacg 2.0 into its owns standards.  Interestingly enough the Ontario Human Rights Code has an even tighter mandate.  My understanding from previous discussions is that if a site is for the public, like a store, a company cannot tell those experiencing disabilities what they can use. i.e. our site works with jaws so...
> Kare
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL wrote:
>
>> Karen,
>>
>> WCAG 2, as a technical standard, cannot mandate human rights legal requirements.
>>
>> It is the laws in counties that point to and require the usage of particular standards.
>>
>> The requirement to 'not mandate specific assistive technologies' for use by users with disabilities, would be covered by the human or disability rights laws in Ontario. I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the AODA, it is possible that such a clause exists.
>>
>> It seems clear to me that organizations cannot mandate what you must use. But I do not know if that is a provision of your laws. They certainly should be clearly identifying what AT they do support in their Accessibility Statements. And, they cannot claim conformance to WCAG 2 if they do not have some sort of identified accessibility support.
>>
>> ​​​​Here is the definition of Accessibility Supported from the WCAG 2 standard:
>>
>> " Accessibility Supported
>> Using a technology in a way that is accessibility supported means that it works with assistive technologies (AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and other user agents. Technology features can only be relied upon to conform to WCAG 2.0 success criteria if they are used in a way that is "accessibility supported". Technology features can be used in ways that are not accessibility supported (do not work with assistive technologies, etc.) as long as they are not relied upon to conform to any success criterion (i.e., the same information or functionality is also available another way that is supported). "
>>
>> Also Conformance Claim number 4 from the WCAG 2 standard says:
>>
>> " 4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies: Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported. (See Understanding accessibility support.)"
>>
>> Hopefully someone else who lknows more about AODA will chime in 'not mandate specific assistive technologies' for use by users with disabilities, if it exists in Ontarian law.
>>
>>
>> * katie *
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea
>> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
>> Chair, W3C WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) Interest Group
>> (@w3c_wai)
>>
>> JOIN US: Subscribe to the WAI IG list, send an email to w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org with “subscribe” as the subject line.
>>
>> Personal: Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |
>> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:19 AM
>> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Technical baseline clause revisited?
>>
>> Good morning everyone,
>> Before I start let me express my appreciation  to each of you for your commitment to inclusion.  At the end of the day the resources alone at least for me  fortifies my hope.
>> I have what I trust is a simple question,  although  the situation is a tad complex.
>> A couple of years back at least we discussed the technical baseline clause, how some companies use this to avoid compliance  even with basic things like keyboard functioning by stating they use say jaws, You must as well.
>> My understanding then was that a company cannot place such
>> requirements on  the general public.
>> Can anyone document for me if this remains the case?
>> I have one of those situations that if I used what the company is claiming I must use...it would actually do me physical harm.
>> so I want to share with the mediator that making such requirements violates WACG in general.  I am in Ontario and was told privately that the AODA  incorporates WACG into its standards.  The Ontario Human Rights Code has a greater level of mandate  undue hardship,  meaning regardless the company is violating the latter, but they are claiming the former.
>> Thoughts?
>> Thanks,
>> Kare
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:24:25 UTC