- 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