W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Assistive Technology Detection

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:26:14 -0600
To: accessys@smart.net
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OFFFCABD94.6C52E145-ON86258224.0067C552-86258224.006AC8DE@notes.na.collabserv.com>
but Bob, 
there are so many things we do agree on though, like
1. Web applications should be developed to accommodate assistive 
technology without the web application knowing if the user is using 
assistive 
technology.
2. Web application should comply with WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success 
Criteria.
3. Internet access should be affordable to everyone.
4. Assistive Technology should be affordable to everyone. 
___________
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/
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com



From:   accessys@smart.net
To:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" 
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   01/29/2018 09:52 AM
Subject:        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:┬
>> "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. ┬ 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. ┬ 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". ┬
>>
>> 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. ┬ The
> solution is the samecost and same availability to both the user with a
> disability and the personwithout disabilities. ┬ And while it is equally
> expensive to both aswell, it is equally compliant (or can be) to 
standards
> and equally usableto both . ┬
>>
>> WCAG standardsdo not and should not address affordability in my 
opinion.
> ┬ Othermechanism do and should address affordability. ┬ 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. ┬  Similar to how now ARIA is supportedby platforms 
and
> assistive technology - so it can be considered in theclaim that it is
> accessibility supported.
>> ┬ ___________
>> 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:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> To:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ PhillJenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>> Cc:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Date:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 01/26/201802:52 AM
>> Subject:┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 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. ┬ 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.") ┬
>>
>>> 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? ┬
>>
>> 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. ┬ Of course
> what users actuallyuse significantly influences what are the definitive
> list of accessibilitysupported technologies. ┬ 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. ┬ 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: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
>> To: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ DavidWoolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>,
> "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org"<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Date: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 01/25/201806:52 PM
>> Subject: ┬  ┬  ┬  ┬ 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? ┬
>>
>> Accessibility supported is a requirementfor conformance. ┬
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 January 2018 19:26:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 January 2018 19:26:53 UTC