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

RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: David Best <davebest@cogeco.ca>
cc: 'Howard Leicester' <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>, 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL' <ryladog@gmail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1608241820530.29976@server2.shellworld.net>
Hi David,
Oh so do I.  The amusing  thing is that this company created a feasibility 
standard which they say is human rights compliant.  I. e. I ask for 
something  the person  having never heard of a screen reader says it is 
technically  impossible,  or not feasible, and  I am denied.
Which is part of how we made it to the HRTO.
thanks for sharing,
Kare


On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, David Best wrote:

> The AODA INTEGRATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, ONTARIO REGULATION 191/11
> https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r11191
>
> has no clause that allows an Ontario organization to dictate what assistive
> technologies are to be used by any person with a disability. PART II INFORMATION
> AND COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS, section 14, states that the WCAG-AA is the accepted
> level of conformance for Accessible websites and web content. This applies to the
> Employment and Customer Service standards for making information available; such
> as accessible formats and accessible supports. However, it appears we have a false
> sense of compliance in Ontario, and minimal enforcement. As many organization
> websites claim WCAG-AA compliance based on an Accessibility Consultants
> certification (which really means nothing). As an example, many Ontario
> organizations post an accessibility compliance statement based on their use of the
> eSSENTIAL Accessibility service. The belief is that organizations that feature the
> app on their websites are committed to making it easier for people with
> disabilities to access information online, and do not have to update their
> website. Unfortunately, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario (enforcer of the
> AODA) appear to accept this claim. So, if you use a screen reader and have
> difficulties, it is not their problem.
>
> Kare, I believe you have a Human Rights issue and not an AODA WCAG-AA compliance
> issue.
>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Leicester [mailto:howard_leicester@btconnect.com]
> Sent: August 24, 2016 02:54 PM
> To: 'Karen Lewellen'; 'Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL'
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?
>
> 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 22:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 24 August 2016 22:24:33 UTC