(unknown charset) RE: Comprehensive WCAG conformance leads to accessibility for all irrespective of the technology used-any statement to prove this legally?

Steve has provided some fine information, from the screen reader 
perspective  especially.
However, and others may comment here as well,  what might  be your 
strongest 
argument is that this portal is only being accommodating, for a single 
segment  of a single population, instead for what I would guess is the 
intended goal, all those possibly using  the portal, with the body they 
have, if that makes sense.
I choose that phrasing because  wcag is not  only about blindness, or even 
about blindness.  Instead it is about interaction,  with I dare say many 
in your population  requiring access who would have no reason to use a 
screen reader at all.
Those with a cognitive, or dexterity challenge for example.
To be sure, our situation illustrates a profoundly common and extremely 
disturbing pattern.
a company decided, for whatever reason, that only those disabled as they 
define it,  here NvDA users, are entitled to a seat at the table.
My question for you though is what percentage of  your population lives 
with a different body experience?  Perhaps in theory at least, part of 
your 
case can be made by simply illustrating that, in principle as Steve notes, 
a more comprehensive audit allows for a greater percentage of the India 
population  to use the portal.
A well designed service provides inclusion for more than those who 
interact with technology uniquely due to how their body works.
Those who prefer using less bondage, using less off the shelf popular 
technology
  for financial reasons, those in parts of the country where  the Internet 
requires    different tools.
Perhaps you can make the case less about a screen reader argument, and 
more about a broader population one?
Final comment,  just as with the  true / false question rule, the one 
stating that if a question uses always or never, it is false?   Using the 
word *all* can be equally  unwise.  after all the individuals seeking 
access  differ from one another, just like the rest of humanity.
A site rooted in progressive enhancement design, with extras added on top 
tends to largely personify an inclusive door.
Just my take,
Karen Lewellen


On Wed, 14 Sep 2022, Steve Green wrote:

> I can’t address some of your questions, and unfortunately the answer I can give doesn’t support your case. Even though WCAG conformance is technology independent, comprehensive conformance to WCAG does not guarantee that you won’t get different results with different assistive technologies. In the case of screen readers, the behaviour is always different.
>
> WCAG requires that websites expose information including the roles, states and properties of elements, such that assistive technologies can interact with the website correctly and convey the correct information to the user. However, WCAG does not require websites to be tested using assistive technologies and it does not require the website to work correctly with them.
>
> Assistive technology behaviour is covered by the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and is the responsibility of the assistive technology vendor. In principle, if a website is WCAG conformant and an assistive technology is UAAG conformant, then the website should work correctly with that assistive technology. However, the UAAG do not specify exactly how screen readers should behave under all circumstances.
>
> In practice, no two screen readers behave the same. There are some intentional differences, such as Voiceover not having a “virtual cursor” mode, which JAWS and NVDA do have. There will also be unintentional differences because the vendors don’t copy each other (too much). Inevitably, screen readers will have bugs, so they do not work as the vendor intended and perhaps genuinely believes they do.
>
> Furthermore, the HTML, CSS, ARIA and JavaScript specifications are under continuous development. No screen reader supports every aspect of them. Many aspects are widely supported, but support for new aspects is inevitably variable, and even some old aspects are not supported by all screen readers.
>
> Perhaps the biggest difference between JAWS and NVDA is the use of heuristics. Screen reader vendors know that only a tiny percentage of websites are coded properly, so to improve the user experience, JAWS uses heuristics to guess what the author really meant. For instance, if a textbox is not labelled, JAWS assumes that the text immediately before it in the DOM is its label, which will be correct most of the time (but not always). By contrast, NVDA does not appear to use any heuristics, so in this case it would announce the textbox as being unlabelled.
>
> As a rule, NVDA gives a more accurate user experience, while JAWS gives a better user experience because it compensates for some aspects of bad coding. It is therefore curious that the tax submission portal would work better with NVDA. I can’t imagine what weird coding Infosys have done that results in that. Can you give me access to the portal?
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
> From: Amar Jain <amarjain@amarjain.com>
> Sent: 14 September 2022 06:38
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Comprehensive WCAG conformance leads to accessibility for all irrespective of the technology used-any statement to prove this legally?
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> By way of a quick introduction, I am Amar Jain, a corporate lawyer and a Certified Professional in Web Accessibility based out of India.
>
>
>
> We have a case going on for inaccessibility of our tax submission portal. The vendor is Infosys, and the problem is that only those issues that we are highlighting are getting resolved and comprehensive audit is not being done due to commercial reasons.
>
>
>
> Further, there seems to be hard coding for NVDA, as the portal is reasonably functional with NVDA and not with Jaws. The lack of audit is also leaving behind persons with other disabilities.
>
>
>
> The argument of the vendor is that it is because of the architecture of the portal which is why NVDA will be the only screen reader which should be used for maximum functionality. Second argument is more legal in nature, which is to say that current Indian standards only restrict testing with NVDA which we can work around.
>
>
>
> We need to prove to the Court that a comprehensive WCAG conformance is technology independent and irrespective of the technology that people use, a comprehensive conformance will ensure widest accessibility possible.
>
>
>
> Is there any document which backs-up this statement and is there any precedent where comprehensive audit has been asked by way of a court order?
>
>
>
> In nutshell, I need to convince the court that a comprehensive audit is the only way to go, and a comprehensive conformance to WCAG will not produce different results with different technologies in terms of accessibility.
>
>
>
> Your valuable inputs will be greatly appreciated before September 22.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Amar Jain
>