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

 "Accessibility supported" is a conformance requirement. But I read accessibility supported as saying authors who claim to build accessible content for an organization can't rely on techniques that are incompatible with assistive techniques used in that organization.  If they do use those unreliable techniques, they need to still provide the reliable techniques for those users in that organization. 

Asking authors how they test their content with various AT is one way of demonstrating that, but the WCAG working group described another.
"Individual authors will not usually be able to do all of the testing necessary to determine which ways of using which Web technologies are actually supported by which versions of assistive technologies and user agents. Authors may therefore rely on publicly documented compilations that document which assistive technologies support which ways of using which Web technologies... The publicly documented compilations are described only as a method to make an otherwise critical, but somewhat complicated, aspect of conformance easier for authors who are not themselves experts on assistive technology support (or who just don't have the time to keep up with advances in mainstream and assistive technology support for each other)." (source)

Here's an example from PowerMapper.com.

The WCAG working group was clear about the need for more discussion about the topic of  compatibility with assistive technology:
"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, September 16, 2022 at 02:58:54 p.m. EDT, Brooks Newton <brooksallennewton@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Here's the too long, didn't read version of my post:  I disagree with Steve Repsher on a number of points about accessibility support and the implications this phrase has on the participants who help define accessible user experiences.  In my opinion testing with assistive technology is fantastic advice that I recommend to all testers, but it isn't required to measure conformance under the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Hi Steve Repsher, 

That's an interesting opinion you have on the meaning and intent of "accessibility supported." I always thought that at least part of the meaning of "accessibility support" had to do with rules that the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group had to follow when they proposed new Success Criteria.  I thought that it wasn't OK for the Working Group to establish a new Success Criterion if there was no "accessibility support" for the new rule at the time. In other words, I thought that at least part of the meaning of "accessibility support" in WCAG world is to not make content authors jump through hoops to follow a rule if there is no accessibility support for the rule out in the wilds of the Internet that will yield real benefits to real users with disabilities.
Think about SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose and SC 1.3.6 Identify Purpose.  Both of those WCAG 2.1 additions require the use of content implentation techniques that should yield a user benefit to people with disabilities when parsed through required assistive technology.  At the time of WCAG 2.1 finalization, were there ways that assistive technology testing for these two rules would tell testers, "Yes this site complies with the rules and following the new rules yields an intended user benefit that is obvious?"

I know you were on the Working Group when these rules were crafted.  So was I.  How did you personally consider "accessibility support" for these two Success Criteria when vetting them for inclusion in the final WCAG 2.1 standard?  Was there accessibility support for Identify Input Purpose and Identify Purpose when the rules were finalized?
I also thought that "accessibility support," as documented in the Understanding WCAG 2.1 document was a two-way street.  Content authors must do their parts, and software manufactures need to their parts, as well, to be have "accessibility support."  Here's an excerpt from that Understanding WCAG 2.1 document:
"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"

What evidence do we have that user agent and assistive technology manufacturers have been doing their parts to ensure accessibility support?

Seems like placing all of the burdens of access on content authors, and none on the standards bodies, wares manufacturers or even users is the way things have gone in the past.  How's that worked out for everyone?  If you are a software manufacturer or standards body, I would imagine it feels pretty good.  For content authors and users with disabilities, I don't think the current system works nearly as well as it could.

Lots of governments have adopted WCAG, which is often mistaken by casual observers as the Web Content Author Guidelines, into law.   How many governments have adopted regulations for software/hardware manufacturers, or even standards bodies, when it comes to codifying support for digital access?  Why not?  Are these governments aware of the lopsided burden content authors and owners are required to bear under the WCAG rules?  If they were aware, would they have adopted WCAG into law so readily?
I think, as an accessibility tester, you are making a big mistake if you don't test your content with assistive technology.  I do not, however, believe that testing with assistive technology is required.  I believe that content authors should be able to create content and code to a standard and be able to claim conformance with accesibility guidelines.  I also believe that wares manufacturers and standards bodies should also be required to follow regularly updated standards in creating their products to achieve optimal results.  Users, you are going to have do your parts, too.  I know that I'm not alone in my understanding.
Brooks Newton
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:24 AM Steve Repsher <steverep@gmail.com> wrote:

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).  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