Re: Assistive Technology Detection

I hope a productive conversation can continue.  The WCAG Working Group see conversations around levels of "accessibility supported" as necessary and complex (see the section under the heading "Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for 'Accessibility Support'"). Item 5 in the list addresses Bob's point and Phil's number 4. Can anyone add more to the discussion? 
What's the way to make "accessibility supported" a reality? 
 

    On Monday, January 29, 2018 2:31 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
 

 but Bob, 
there are so manythings we do agree on though, like
1. Webapplications should be developed to accommodate assistive technology withoutthe web application knowing if the user is using assistive 
technology.
2. Web application should complywith WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria.
3. Internet access should be affordableto everyone.
4. Assistive Technology should beaffordable to everyone. 
___________
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/
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com



From:       accessys@smart.net
To:       PhillJenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc:       MarkWeiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:       01/29/201809:52 AM
Subject:       Re:Assistive Technology Detection




we have disagreed (agreeably) about this for some years I doubt neitherof 
us will change the others mind much.  parking is more like poweringdown 
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 parkinglot owner to
> provide/pay for the Van, or the car, to use the accessible parkingspot.
> 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 smallmotor
> home, it may not fit.  If the user needs or wants an accessiblevan, it is
> not the parking lot owners responsibility to provide the van.  Theparking
> lot owner only has to provide a certain number of the two differentsized
> parking spaces in their parking lot.
>
> I provided this analogy as an example of claiming technical complianceto
> WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria.  If the web site owner provides awebsite that
> is supported by ARIA supported assistive technologies, then it meetsthe
> technical standard.
>
> If you disagree with the analogy as an example, then we can agreeto
> 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 workinggroup
> 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 thistopic.
> Some notes to help in understanding and exploring this topic are...
>> Currently assistive technology that is affordable by the generalpublic
> is often very poor... In many cases, the cost of assistive technologiesis
> 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 entitiescloser
> to each situation that set requirements for an organization, purchase,
> community, etc.
>> The Working Group encourages more discussion of this topic inthe
> general forum of society since this lack of generally available yetrobust
> 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 povertylevels. .
> .
>>
>> 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 purchasein a way
> that:
>>   - does not cost a person with a disabilityany more thana person
> without a disability and
>>   - is as easy to find and obtain for a personwith a disabilityas it is
> for a person without disabilities.
>> doesnot address "afordability", but does address equalcosts 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 understoodto
> be "accessibility supported". Â
>>
>> Bob, correct meif I'm wrong, but Bob is talking about how someusers
> with disabilitiescan't afford the $900 lapttop, so they can't affordto
> upgrade to the latestARIA supported technologies for example. Â The
> solution is the samecost and same availability to both the user witha
> 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 myopinion.
> Â Othermechanism do and should address affordability. Â And, for
> example,neither does or should ADA standards cover the affordabilityofan
> 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.ÂAnd
> there are considerations in the standards that are "determined"bythe AT
> it self, such as the Van Accessible specs are wider, etc. thanregularcar
> accessible spots. Â  Similar to how now ARIA is supportedby platformsand
> assistive technology - so it can be considered in theclaim that itis
> 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 "conformanceclaims" can
> involve statingweb technologies relied upon but these "conformanceclaims"
> 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-supportedwaysof using
> technologiesare reliedupon to satisfythe success criteria.")Â
>>
>>> From the referencedocument,it seem that AT's and user agentsdetermine
> 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 featuresof
> mainstream technologies willwork with the technology" (caps andemphasis
> in the original).
>>
>> The technicaldefinition of accessibility-supportedhas two partsand I
> believe part 2.d addresses Bob's point about povertylevels, as doother
> 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 Ofcourse
> what users actuallyuse significantly influences what are the definitive
> list of accessibilitysupported technologies. Â There is no requirementto
> "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 whenthe
> user isrelying on those accessibility supported features in the operating
> systemand browser platform. Â The site or app conformance would failif
> the1.3.1 Info and relationship success criteria fails because some
> labelsor headings "disappeared" when turning on the highcontrast
> 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 peopleare those
>> that use JAWs.
>>
>> 2) it will probably have a similar effect to early mobile websites,
>> which tended to be cleaner, and easier to use that the main website.
>> 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 toidentify
>>> and personally I would be ,opposed to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>