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: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:12:05 -0600
To: Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OFE3AB831E.A2101327-ON86258225.00149A02-86258225.002213E9@notes.na.collabserv.com>
the way to make it a reality is to simply follow the guidance in the link 
Mark provider Understanding Accessibility Support:
"When new technologies are introduced, two things must happen in order for 
people using assistive technologies to be able to access them. First, the 
technologies must be designed in a way that user agents including 
assistive technologies could access all the information they need to 
present the content to the user. Secondly, the user agents and assistive 
technologies may need to be redesigned or modified to be able to actually 
work with these new technologies.
"Accessibility Supported" means that both of these have been done and that 
the technology will work with user agents and assistive technologies."

Clearly there has to be acceptance that user agents and assistive 
technology may need to be redesigned or modified to be able to actually 
work with new technologies.  Is WAI-ARIA an example of a new technlolgy 
designed in a way that user agents *could* access all the information they 
need to present the content to the user - yes I believe there is general 
consensus.  Did user agents and assistive technologies get redesigned and 
modified to be able to *actually* work with WAI-ARIA - yes I believe there 
is general consensus.  So WAI-ARIA is an example of a new technology that 
is actually accessibility supported in at least English and other 
languages, on the Windows and other platforms, in Firefox and other 
browsers, and NVDA, JAWS and other assistive technologies. 

So, going back to Mark's original question: 
"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?"

The site doesn't need to know which AT is being used by the user at the 
exact time the page is loading, but that the site or app *can* know what 
web content technologies to serve up by knowing which ones are supported 
*if* there are user agents and AT that support it - then it *will* work - 
becasue it has been tested to validate so.  The Understanding WCAG 
document goes on to say that there is a need for an external and 
international dialogue on this topic. Some notes to help in understanding 
and exploring this topic:
1.      Accessibility support of Web technologies varies by environment
Web technologies may only need to be supported by those specific user 
agents and assistive technologies deployed at a company. (These may be 
older versions of user agents and assistive technologies or the very 
newest versions).
Content posted to the public Web may need to work with a broader range of 
user agents and assistive technologies, including older versions.
2.      Accessibility support of Web technologies varies by language (and 
dialect)
There are different levels of older assistive technologies support in 
different languages and even countries. Some environments or countries may 
provide free assistive technologies.
3.      New technologies won't be supported in older assistive 
technologies
Clearly, a new technology cannot be supported by all past assistive 
technologies, so requiring that a technology be supported by all assistive 
technologies is not possible.
4.      Support for a single older assistive technology is usually not 
sufficient
Support by just one assistive technology (for a given disability) would 
not usually be enough, especially if most users who need it in order to 
access content do not have and cannot afford that assistive technology. 
The exception here would be information distributed to company employees 
only where they all have one assistive technology (of that type).
5.      Currently assistive technology that is affordable by the general 
public is often very poor
Creating content that can't be used by the general public with 
disabilities should be avoided. In many cases, the cost of assistive 
technologies is too high for users who need it. Also, the capabilities of 
free or low cost AT is often so poor today that Web content cannot be 
realistically restricted to this lowest (or even middle) common 
denominator. This creates a very difficult dilemma that needs to be 
addressed.

And then the Understanding WCAG document includes Examples of Conformance 
Claims that list 
        - the technologies that this content "relies upon" is: blah blah 
blah
        - the content was tested using the following user agents and 
assistive technologies: blah blah blah

So, the web site owner *can* document a claim (but doesn't have to 
document the claim per WCAG) how they validated (or tested or determined 
or what ever English phrase they want to use) it confoms to the success 
criteria.  The Information Industry Technology Council (see 
https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility) includes a section in the 
Voluntary Product Accessibility Template«, or VPAT« 2.0 for reporting 
conformance:
". . . 4.       A report must contain the following content at a minimum:
Ě       . . . Evaluation Methods Used ? Include a description of what 
evaluation methods were used to complete the VPAT for the product under 
test. . . . 
ITI suggests that authors adopt the following best practices when using 
the VPAT« to create an Accessibility Conformance Report. . . . 
Ě       Evaluation Methods Used ? Information to enter may include the 
following:
Ě       Testing is based on general product knowledge
Ě       Similar to another evaluated product 
Ě       Testing with assistive technologies
Ě       Published test method (provide name, publisher, URL link)
Ě       Vendor proprietary test method 
Ě       Other test method "
Even after all this designing with users and testing with browsers and 
assistive technologies and documenting the conformance, there still can be 
a delimina, as I try to remind Bob and others [quoting from the 2017 
Understanding Accessibility Support] that the capabilities of free or low 
cost AT is often so poor today that Web content cannot be realistically 
restricted to this lowest (or even middle) common denominator. This 
creates a very difficult dilemma that needs to be addressed. 
I believe this *is* being address by non-profit organizations, 
governments, corporations, and other initiatives that are providing "1st 
Class" low cost internet access, assistive technologies, and funded 
research:
        organizations such as Benetech, technology for social good at 
https://benetech.org/,
        governments such as the U.S.'s NIDILRR
        corporations such as IBM's Corporate Responsibility,and Apple's 
(VoiceOver) and Microsoft's inclusion of assistive technologies for no 
additional cost in the platform,
        initiatives such as Google.org Impact Challenge 
https://www.google.org/our-work/google-impact-challenge/
        and all the efforts in closing the digital divide through 
improving affordable access 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide#Overcoming_the_divide
 ___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins




From:   Mark Weiler <mweiler@alumni.sfu.ca>
To:     Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, "accessys@smart.net" 
<accessys@smart.net>
Cc:     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   01/29/2018 07:46 PM
Subject:        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 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 Tuesday, 30 January 2018 06:13:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 30 January 2018 06:13:17 UTC