RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

See https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial

WCAG only includes 2 examples of partial conformance: 
        1. 3rd part content not controlled by the web app owner, for 
example: "This page does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.0 at 
level A if the following parts from uncontrolled sources were removed." 
        2. other natural languages not supported, for example: ""This page 
does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.0 at level A if 
accessibility support existed for the following language(s): Greek" 

also, "supports with exceptions" was introduced by 508 VPATs, not WCAG. 
although in a sense, partial conformance vs supports with exceptions are 
often meant to be the same thing, its just not explicitly document 
anywhere that I know of. 

Regarding your query, conformance with only 1 screen reader on one 
operating system in my mind does not meet the intent of the success 
criteria, so I would say it does not support.  I reserve "supports with 
exceptions" in rare occasions such as for 3rd party content, languages, 
and specific areas of a web site or web apps that can be "described in a 
way that users can identify" the exception .and in essence, avoid, but 
still accomplish the task or purpose of the web site or app.  For example, 
the web site may be conformant with level A and AA success criteria, 
except for things like:
         web app tutorial, 
        on-line end user support forums that provide an alternative to 
phone support, 
        live video broadcasts
        etc.  described in a way that users can identify" the exception
 ___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 
Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com




From:   "Sean Murphy (seanmmur)" <seanmmur@cisco.com>
To:     Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL 
<ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc:     "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   08/24/2016 08:33 PM
Subject:        RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?



Phil,
 
If I understand your comments. If a company places a caveat that states 
the web site has been tested with x screen reader for CA, wouldn?t 
technically pass their regulation. The query is would it be a pass with 
exceptions?
 
 
Sean Murphy
Accessibility Software engineer 
seanmmur@cisco.com
Tel: +61 2 8446 7751      Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
ST LEONARDS
2065
Australia
cisco.com 
 Think before you print.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole 
use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure 
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient 
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by 
reply email and delete all copies of this message.
 
From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2016 10:15 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Karen Lewellen' <klewellen@shellworld.net>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?
 
My additional point to add on this thread is that there can be confusion 
in terminology at times, especially across legal terms and applicability. 
For example, in order for the entity to comply with some provision of 
AODA, their web site or web app should conform to the 36 Success Criteria 
of WCAG 2.0 that are referenced in AODA.  e.g. conform to the technical 
standard means the web site passes the success criteria.  A company (or 
entity) complies with the law, a web site conforms to the standard.  The 
company can't say their web site conforms to the standard by requiring a 
certain assistive technology, because, as Katie quoted, the standard 
itself says: ". . . it [the website] works with assistive technologies 
(AT) and the accessibility features of operating systems, browsers, and 
other user agents." 

In other words, the entity complies with AODA by claiming which web 
technologies (e.g. HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, etc.) they are relying upon, 
not which assistive technologies they are relying upon to pass the WCAG 
success criteria. The keyboard success criteria does not imply nor should 
it rely on any assistive technology, it explicitly says through a keyboard 
interface, which is typically part of the operating system platform and a 
physically attached keyboard, period. 

2.1.1Keyboard: All functionalityof the content is operable through a 
keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual 
keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that 
depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. 
(Level A) 

A Keyboard interface is an operating system feature that is used by the 
browser, used by the AT, and used by other user agents.  The OS feature 
also provides the physical (or Bluetooth connected) keyboard device 
support to the human end user as well.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 
Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
IBM Research - IBM Accessibility
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com




From:        "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com>
To:        "'Karen Lewellen'" <klewellen@shellworld.net>, <
w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:        08/24/2016 12:32 PM
Subject:        RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?




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