(unknown charset) RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

Hi Alan,
Honestly?
I would skip talking about what you have used and tested, because as you 
illustrate with your ipad option, you will miss the box...since that ipad 
user deserves the door.
Would it not be more productive to ask the individual involved than to 
state what you have used?  Is it not more inclusive to focus on the 
concrete, not the mode of transportation?
  First and foremost, using the most basic of browsers, do my links have 
alt tags, do the functions on my site produce the same results when the 
enter key the arrow keys are engaged as they might with a mouse?
For at least one cascading style sheet for my site?  Then move up the 
complexity scale.
Because each person manages their body uniqueness differently, your testing 
may not reflect the situation of any number of people.
In some cases your testing becomes obsolete in a month or so if a product 
is updated.
I would not share what you have used or tested at all.
Because unless you are the person, it is frankly pointless.  too many 
variables come into play.
In your example, if it does not work in an environment, it is not 
compliant, unless you are providing all of the programs involved, the 
training, the computers, and all the rest that goes into an accommodation.
Does this make more sense?
Sharing what you have tested with does not matter.
making sure that  there is at least one cascading style sheet which works 
fully and completely from the keyboard does.
Make more sense?
Many companies turn that we tested list into a mandate, assuming that a 
person  can just grab what you have used off the shelf, the adaptive tools 
are interchangeable concept I shared.
That you tested something in no way fashion or form means an end user can 
duplicate what you have done.
  Karen


On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:

> Karen,
>
> I totally agree with you.
>
> As I replied to Phi:
> 	“I appreciate your response and feedback,
>
> 	My goal in the use of the word “all” was to help with a clarification of what a company can do and can say that 	they do support since it is clear that they cannot support “all”. Companies can only be expected to support 	“some” and hopefully it is the most commonly used systems and ATs.
>
> 	Just a side not: When www.healthcare.gov first came out and was in all the news in the USA, I thought I would l	ook at their site. It worked fairly well with PCs, JAWS and NVDA. However, it had extremely poor functionality on 	iPADS with Safari and VoiceOver. In fact, it did not even work well without AT on that platform. So, can we 	assume that it was not compliant with Section 508 because it was not supported on iPADs?
>
> 	It seems my question to you did meet its goal in that what you wrote supports the notion that a company “CAN” 	state which OSes and ATs they use and have tested their webpages on.
>
> 	While companies cannot mandate what you can and cannot use, they can specify which system and ATs they do 	support or have validated their websites on.”
>
>
> Alan
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
> From: Karen Lewellen