(unknown charset) Re: Assistive Technology Detection

we have disagreed (agreeably) about this for some years I doubt neither of 
us will change the others mind much.  parking is more like powering down 
the computer not using it.

Bob


On Mon, 29 Jan 2018, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:27:31 -0600
> From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> To: accessys@smart.net
> Cc: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>,
>     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Assistive Technology Detection
> 
> come on Bob, no one, including me, is arguing for a Lexus to be required
> to drive down an ADA compliant highway.
> but to use a highway, you do have to have a car that can go the minimum
> speed, 45 mph I think, and meet all the safety standards, right?
>
> I simply said that ADA technical standards cover both the larger Van
> Accessible parking spot - and - also cover what is a smaller regular
> accessible parking spot.  The ADA doesn't require the parking lot owner to
> provide/pay for the Van, or the car, to use the accessible parking spot.
> The specs were developed to meet the common sizes (but not 100%) of
> accessible vans, If you have an accessible van the size of a small motor
> home, it may not fit.  If the user needs or wants an accessible van, it is
> not the parking lot owners responsibility to provide the van.  The parking
> lot owner only has to provide a certain number of the two different sized
> parking spaces in their parking lot.
>
> I provided this analogy as an example of claiming technical compliance to
> WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria.  If the web site owner provides a website that
> is supported by ARIA supported assistive technologies, then it meets the
> technical standard.
>
> If you disagree with the analogy as an example, then we can agree to
> disagree.
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
> Conformance Report VPAT® at  able.ibm.com/request
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
> IBM Research Accessibility
> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
>
>
>
>
> From:   accessys@smart.net
> To:     Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
> Cc:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"
> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Date:   01/26/2018 01:11 PM
> Subject:        Re: Assistive Technology Detection
>
>
>
>
> and phill's argument falls apart at this point.
>
> eg   we have a highway and anyone with a Lexus can drive on it.  so it is
> open to anyone just go buy a Lexus.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Mark Weiler wrote:
>
>> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
>> From: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>> Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Assistive Technology Detection
>> Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:42:47 +0000
>> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>>
>>
>> My reading of the WCAG 2.0's Understanding document is the working group
> interprets the issue of affordability within the requirement of
> 'accessibility supported'. To quote:Â
>> "This topic raises the question of how many or which assistive
> technologies must support a Web technology in order for that Web
> technology to be considered "accessibility supported".. ..This is a
> complex topic and one that varies both by environment and by language.
> There is a need for an external and international dialogue on this topic.
> Some notes to help in understanding and exploring this topic are...
>> Currently assistive technology that is affordable by the general public
> is often very poor... In many cases, the cost of assistive technologies is
> too high for users who need it... [emphasis added]
>> The Working Group, therefore, limited itself to defining what
> constituted support and defers the judgment of how much, how many, or
> which AT must support a technology to the community and to entities closer
> to each situation that set requirements for an organization, purchase,
> community, etc.
>> The Working Group encourages more discussion of this topic in the
> general forum of society since this lack of generally available yet robust
> assistive technologies is a problem that affects users, technology
> developers and authors negatively."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On Friday, January 26, 2018 12:11 PM, Phill Jenkins
> <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> | . . . Ibelieve part 2.d addresses Bob's point about poverty levels. .
> .
>>
>> hmm, not the way Iinterpret Bob's comments over the years. Â For
> example, quoting 2.dTheuser agent(s) that support the technology are
> accessibility supported andare available for download or purchase in a way
> that:
>>   - does not cost a person with a disabilityany more than a person
> without a disability and
>>   - is as easy to find and obtain for a personwith a disability as it is
> for a person without disabilities.
>> doesnot address "afordability", but does address equal costs andequal
> availability. Â If a $900 laptop, with the latest operating system,browser
> and AT (such as free NVDA) is equally the same costs and equallyavailable
> in the English language in the neighboor store  - then itis understood to
> be "accessibility supported". Â
>>
>> Bob, correct meif I'm wrong, but Bob is talking about how some users
> with disabilitiescan't afford the $900 lapttop, so they can't afford to
> upgrade to the latestARIA supported technologies for example. Â The
> solution is the samecost and same availability to both the user with a
> disability and the personwithout disabilities. Â And while it is equally
> expensive to both aswell, it is equally compliant (or can be) to standards
> and equally usableto both . Â
>>
>> WCAG standardsdo not and should not address affordability in my opinion.
> Â Othermechanism do and should address affordability. Â And, for
> example,neither does or should ADA standards cover the affordability ofan
> accessible van in defining the number of van accessible parking spotsthere
> needs to be in a parking lot, it does not cover the affordabilitywhen
> considering the width and spacing of a van accessible parking spot. And
> there are considerations in the standards that are "determined"by the AT
> it self, such as the Van Accessible specs are wider, etc. thanregular car
> accessible spots. Â  Similar to how now ARIA is supportedby platforms and
> assistive technology - so it can be considered in theclaim that it is
> accessibility supported.
>> Â ___________
>> Regards,
>> Phill Jenkins
>> Check out the newsystem for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
> Conformance Report VPAT®at  able.ibm.com/request
>> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
>> SeniorEngineer & Accessibility Executive
>> IBM Research Accessibility
>> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:Â  Â  Â  Â MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> To:Â  Â  Â  Â PhillJenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>> Cc:Â  Â  Â  Â DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Date:Â  Â  Â  Â 01/26/201802:52 AM
>> Subject:Â  Â  Â  Â Re:Assistive Technology Detection
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil, (Bob)
>>
>> My reading of the WCAG2.0 documents is that "conformance claims" can
> involve statingweb technologies relied upon but these "conformance claims"
> areoptional. Â Conformance itself, however, has 5 required parts, withpart
> 4 requiring web content to only rely on accessibly supported contentto
> meet the success criteria ("Only accessibility-supportedways of using
> technologiesare reliedupon to satisfythe success criteria.") Â
>>
>>> From the referencedocument,it seem that AT's and user agents determine
> whether something is accessibilitysupported or not: "a Web content
> technology is 'accessibility supported'when users' assistive technologies
> will work with the Web technologiesAND when the accessibility features of
> mainstream technologies willwork with the technology" (caps and emphasis
> in the original).
>>
>> The technicaldefinition of accessibility-supportedhas two parts and I
> believe part 2.d addresses Bob's point about povertylevels, as do other
> parts in the reference document.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January25, 2018 10:42 PM, Phill Jenkins
> <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> | howcan 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? Â
>>
>> My understanding is that for a site or app to claim conformance, the
> claimanthas to know or the claim has to state which accessibility
> supported technologieswere relied upon in the conformance testing, not in
> what the user is usingafter the conformance testing is done. Â Of course
> what users actuallyuse significantly influences what are the definitive
> list of accessibilitysupported technologies. Â There is no requirement to
> "serve upthat technology" to claim conformance.
>>
>> For example, if the operating system and browser platform support
> highcontrast technology, the claim can be made that the site or app
> conforms(or still conforms) with all the WCAG Success Criteria when the
> user isrelying on those accessibility supported features in the operating
> systemand browser platform. Â The site or app conformance would fail if
> the1.3.1 Info and relationship success criteria fails because some
> labelsor headings "disappeared" when turning on the high contrast
> accessibilityfeatures supported in the OS & Browser.
>> ___________
>> Regards,
>> Phill Jenkins
>> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
>> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
>> IBM Research Accessibility
>> linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Â  Â  Â  Â MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> To: Â  Â  Â  Â DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Date: Â  Â  Â  Â 01/25/201806:52 PM
>> Subject: Â  Â  Â  Â Re:Assistive Technology Detection
>>
>>
>>
>> Related to AT detection is how can a site or app know what web
> contenttechnologies to serve up that are accessibly supported without
> knowingthe user agents and AT the user is using? Â
>>
>> Accessibility supported is a requirementfor conformance. Â
> Andresearchfindingsshow differences inhow 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.netwrote:
>>>
>>> counter to concept of accessibility, one should not need to identify
>>> and personally I would be ,opposed to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>