RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

I can see no way this discussion especially in such vague terms will resolve any web accessibility issues. 

I did not join the WAI list to learn about Canadian politics and social programs (whatever that term might mean).

Jonathan Cohn

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 2:26 PM
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Technical baseline clause revisited?

No disrespect to David here,  but I am not following what participation  has to  do with social programs?
Further if the legal umbrella here, the AODA  has no complaint component, how would an individual share that the structure does not provide participation?
Technology has changed much in 9 years.  Further how one seeks impacted individuals i dare say  would impact who you did or did not hear from at the time.
The suggestion that a body difference experience automatically translates to a social program component is...disturbing in the 21st century in my view.
Karen


On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, David MacDonald wrote:

> WCAG is a consensus document arrived at over 9 years, by diverse 
> stakeholders including the disability community and industry ... at 
> it's minimum, it requires one technology stack, including 
> accessibility supported  affordable AT, taking into consideration 
> various social programs such as the ADP program in Ontario to support 
> the purchase of AT. In other words web sites don't have to work with 
> free AT, just one set of affordable AT at the minimum.
>
> I sat in on all those sometimes painful discussions over those years, 
> but we have a standard that did not receive one formal objection from 
> any stakeholder, which is a minor miracle given the subject matter.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy 
> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Karen Lewellen 
> <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi again Alan and all,
>> One more important point here.
>> Whose real-world?  the real world is how you define it...just ask trump.
>> Seriously, suspending the assumption that you know anything about any 
>> other person's world but your own must be the first line of 
>> compliance or so I feel.  Otherwise the knee jerk tendency to assume  
>> first and ask never kicks in.
>> Speaking only for myself, I feel such is especially true if you 
>> experience a challenge yourself..a shared label does not a shared experience make.
>> here in Ontario one critical part of how the law is applied requires 
>> a company to position themselves regarding an accommodation 
>> request..in plain English that means you ask what is needed and why.
>> From a section 508 standpoint, I dare say that means you say what 
>> must be present for the door to open at the basic level?
>> Because  so many of you here are  in the policy business the 
>> individual human might not factor into your daily calendar.  Never 
>> forget that you are facilitating participation, not meeting guidelines, if that resonates.
>>
>> just my two cents,
>> Kare
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>>
>> Karen,
>>>
>>> I appreciate your insight into all of this.
>>>
>>> I’m challenged in supporting a client who must be accessible from a 
>>> regulatory standpoint.
>>>
>>> In the real-world user find things don’t always match up with 
>>> regulatory compliance guidelines.
>>>
>>> Best.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>>
>>> From: Karen Lewellen
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 18:52:13 UTC