Re: Comprehensive WCAG conformance leads to accessibility for all irrespective of the technology used-any statement to prove this legally?

Hi Steve,

you stated:

However, WCAG does not require websites to be tested using assistive
> technologies and it does not require the website to work correctly with
> them.
>

This is not correct.  In order to claim conformance to WCAG, the website
must be accessibility supported (see section 5.2.4 of WCAG
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc4>).  From the normative definition of
accessibility supported, the first requirement is:

1. The way that the Web content technology is used must be supported by
> users' assistive technology (AT). This means that the way that the
> technology is used has been tested for interoperability with users'
> assistive technology in the human language(s) of the content,
>

So, in short, you cannot claim conformance to WCAG if your website doesn't
work with available screen readers.

The 2nd requirement goes on to basically try to explain which browsers and
screen readers the website needs to work with, which depends on
availability.  So, for example, if all of the users of a particular
internal website only had access to JAWS, then it must work with JAWS or
you would not be able to claim conformance.  Or, for example, if JAWS were
not distributed anywhere in India so everyone used NVDA, then you should
test with NVDA.

Where the WCAG gets vague is when asking questions about how much
accessibility support is required, but it certainly does require support by
assistive technologies.

Steve



On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 7:37 PM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
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
>