Re: Assistive Technology Detection

| how can a site or app know 
| what web content technologies to serve up 
| that are accessibly supported 
| without knowing the user agents and AT the user is using?  

My understanding is that for a site or app to claim conformance, the 
claimant has to know or the claim has to state which accessibility 
supported technologies were relied upon in the conformance testing, not in 
what the user is using after the conformance testing is done.  Of course 
what users actually use significantly influences what are the definitive 
list of accessibility supported technologies.  There is no requirement to 
"serve up that technology" to claim conformance. 

For example, if the operating system and browser platform support high 
contrast technology, the claim can be made that the site or app conforms 
(or still conforms) with all the WCAG Success Criteria when the user is 
relying on those accessibility supported features in the operating system 
and browser platform.  The site or app conformance would fail if the 1.3.1 
Info and relationship success criteria fails because some labels or 
headings "disappeared" when turning on the high contrast accessibility 
features supported in the OS & Browser. 
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
pjenkins@us.ibm.com
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility
linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/



From:   Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
To:     David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   01/25/2018 06:52 PM
Subject:        Re: Assistive Technology Detection



Related to AT detection is how can a site or app know what web content 
technologies to serve up that are accessibly supported without knowing the 
user agents and AT the user is using? 

Accessibility supported is a requirement for conformance.   And research 
findings show differences in how browsers and ATs are supporting web 
content technologies.





On Thursday, January 25, 2018 7:08 PM, David Woolley 
<forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:


The dangers I see are:

1) this will reinforce the idea that the only disabled people are those 
that use JAWs.

2) it will probably have a similar effect to early mobile web sites, 
which tended to be cleaner, and easier to use that the main web site. 
That may mean that the main web site gets more difficult to use, and you 
won't be able to do the equivalent of using wap instead of www.

On 25/01/18 19:18, accessys@smart.net wrote:
> 
> counter to concept of accessibility, one should not need to identify
> and personally I would be ,opposed to it.