Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:41 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>   Gregg wrote:
>   > the AUTHOR knows that all users already have it (it is in all browsers)
> All browsers? That's a mighty high bar to meet 

Agree.  I was going to go back and qualify that and I forgot.

what we worked with in WCAG was 

Available in most of the major free (FF, IE, Saf, Chrome, etc)  and esp the default  (IE Saf) browsers 

the default were particularly important since there are many places where people are only allowed to use the default browsers

> I'm worried that this is making assumptions not based on evidence,


we based our analysis on real data on what the browsers supported

> "A mechanism exists" is indeed a very powerful blanket statement, but it is also a double-edged sword, and I would suggest we need to tread very carefully here.


Agree



g

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:41 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> 
> Gregg wrote:
> 
> > the AUTHOR knows that all users already have it (it is in all browsers)
> 
> All browsers? That's a mighty high bar to meet Gregg - I wonder aloud how many readers of this thread regularly test in Opera? How about the Yandex browser? Vivaldi? (and those are all based on the Blink web engine[1]) What about Avant[2]? SeaMonkey[3]? qutebrowser[4]? Others?
> 
> I'm worried that this is making assumptions not based on evidence, and is hardly a repeatable, testable state. And as sad as it is to say aloud, we cannot be expecting web authors to be anticipating every individual user-configuration and setting, and I additionally think we should not be asking authors to create widgets and other user-agent tools to address browser short-comings. I mean, it's great that those needs are being met in the marketplace by extensions and plugins (this thread mentions Stylish frequently), but writing a SC dependent on the quirks of a browser plugin feels very wrong to me (in very much the same way as suggesting writing WCAG 2.0 to reflect JAWs of 2006 was not a good idea then either).
> 
> "A mechanism exists" is indeed a very powerful blanket statement, but it is also a double-edged sword, and I would suggest we need to tread very carefully here.
> 
> Alastair wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> +1, but that contradicts what Gregg is suggesting (not that I am in agreement with Gregg's assertion here). I agree Alastair, I suspect that part of the problem is that we are also moving towards a series of SC that say what the author must NOT do (e.g. do NOT mess with the end-user's ability to enlarge text), as opposed to what they must do (provide a widget that allows for magnification of text up-to 400%). I think we need to be crystal clear on that.
> 
> JF
> 
> 
> [1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(web_engine) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(web_engine)>]
> [2 - http://www.avantbrowser.com/ <http://www.avantbrowser.com/>]
> [3 - http://www.seamonkey-project.org/ <http://www.seamonkey-project.org/>]
> [4 - http://www.qutebrowser.org/ <http://www.qutebrowser.org/>]
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>> wrote:
> ???
> 
> 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 <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion