- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 12:40:23 -0600
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <OF47EF9306.532AC1DD-ON862580B1.0064AFA1-862580B1.00669631@notes.na.collabserv.c>
A few questions for the working group to answer, or provide a path to
answer:
1. How does the author (e.g. web site owner, designer, or developer of the
element or page) know that all users have [the mechanism]?
in other words does WCAG or W3C or WAI or who provide the
investigation or testing to determine if [it] is available in browsers and
then publish it somewhere as informative guidance?
If a browser complies with UAAG 2.0 - it that a good indicator?
2. Can the Working Group choose a different term than "mechanism"? such
as a "common browser feature" would be perhaps a better term. In either
case, a good definition of "the term" is needed. The common browser zoom
feature is a good scenario or example to use to explain. I think using
the "user keyboard" is not a good scenario or example to explain the
concept.
3. "in all browsers" is a very problematic phrase. And I pretty sure you
didn't mean it literally as in *all*. So, when is there enough browser
that support the "mechanism"? All the latest releases of the popular
browser, the top 3, top 4, n-2 or what? In other words, as an
author (designer, developer, tester), I need enough information from the
Working Group (WG) to be able to test that I meet the criteria.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com
From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, IG - WAI Interest Group List
list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: 01/23/2017 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
???
There are not ? and should not be - any requirements on the user in any
WCAG. These are guidelines for authors.
A ?mechanism is available? means that the AUTHOR knows that all users
already have it (it is in all browsers ) or the author has to provide it.
If there are new SC being proposed that say ? the user must provide a
mechanism? (in any words) then ? you are right - that is a problem and
needs to be fixed.
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu
On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:
Gregg wrote:
> ?Mechanism is available? is a very powerful and forward looking approach
Yes, and to be clear I wasn?t being critical of its use in WCAG 2.0. In
those cases the onus was (and mostly still is) on the author to provide
the mechanism.
However, for these adaptation SCs the onus is on the user to provide the
mechanism, and for the author not to disrupt their use of it. In that way
it is similar to 2.1.1 Keyboard. The user brings the keyboard, the site
should enable that usage by using proper HTML inputs/links/buttons, not
using dodgy event handling etc.
Cheers,
-Alastair
Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 18:41:49 UTC