E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 2:50AM
Subject: ATAG & specified technologies
No previous message | Next message →

With regards to the UK Governments consultation document on Delivering
Inclusive Websites
(http://www.webstandards.org/2007/11/04/uk-government-accessibility-consultation/),
an interesting question occurred to me that I don't think has ever
been resolved satisfactorily.

The document rightly mentions that part of any CMS procurement should
include a requirement to conform to ATAG.

Now, I've done quite a few ATAG assessments, and with one exception
(that I won't mention for fear of blowing my own companies trumpet),
not a single large-scale CMS I've come across gets even close.

That won't surprise anyone here, but there is one aspect that I
haven't been clear on:

Does requiring a particular platform make something inaccessible?
(Specifically for a browser-based web application.)

The usual case is that a CMS back-end interface only works with
Windows & IE5.5+.

Now, most access technologies work with this combo, but what about
people on other platforms, or use Opera for it's excellent zoom
features?
Is there a 'use-case' where people *need* to use other platforms/browsers?

Many organisations save on sys-admin costs by creating and insisting
on a particular desktop set-up, which is problematic to accessibility
in any case, but is often a source of "but that's what we have anyway,
what's the problem?".
Is that set-up itself breaking the law?

Should someone procuring a CMS insist that it works with other
platforms even when they don't have any other platform?!

It would be a useful question to answer before the consultation is
finalised, if I missed the answer somewhere please let me know what it
was ;-)

Kind regards,

-Alastair

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 3:10AM
Subject: Re: ATAG & specified technologies
← Previous message | Next message →

> Alastair Campbell

> Does requiring a particular platform make something inaccessible?
> (Specifically for a browser-based web application.)
>
> The usual case is that a CMS back-end interface only works with
> Windows & IE5.5+.
>
> Now, most access technologies work with this combo, but what about
> people on other platforms, or use Opera for it's excellent zoom
> features?
> Is there a 'use-case' where people *need* to use other
> platforms/browsers?

> Is that set-up itself breaking the law?

An interesting quandary that I've been pondering recently as well...
My personal view is that yes, ideally the system should be cross-browser and cross-platform, but as long as the employer (government department etc) provides its employees (with or without disabilities) with the platform they need (desktop computer, laptop, any assistive technology they require - all technology that is "accessibility supported", if you will) to do their job (such as work with the CMS), I wouldn't think it's breaking the law(?)

As I say, this is purely my personal gut reaction. IANAL etc

P

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 3:30AM
Subject: Re: ATAG & specified technologies
← Previous message | Next message →

Sorry, to add to my previous message

> > Alastair Campbell

> > Now, most access technologies work with this combo, but what about
> > people on other platforms, or use Opera for it's excellent zoom
> > features?
> > Is there a 'use-case' where people *need* to use other
> > platforms/browsers?

Taking the Opera example, if the users can make a serious case for why they use Opera over plain-vanilla IE (not just based on whim or personal preference), and the CMS backend only works in IE, then the employer would need to provide the user with further tech to accommodate their need (ZoomText or something?).

But maybe I'm overlooking some use cases where there is indeed no other alternative for some users (though I can't think of one off-hand that couldn't be solved by getting additional AT, which the employer would have to then pay for).

P

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 5:40AM
Subject: Re: ATAG & specified technologies
← Previous message | Next message →

On 11/7/07, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> With regards to the UK Governments consultation document on Delivering
> Inclusive Websites
>
> Many organisations save on sys-admin costs by creating and insisting
> on a particular desktop set-up, which is problematic to accessibility
> in any case, but is often a source of "but that's what we have anyway,
> what's the problem?".
>
> Is that set-up itself breaking the law?

I can't comment on UK law, but for US government, this is definitely
within the allowances of the law. The key is that the required
platforms and setup must support real accessibility - and in many
cases it does not. However, many government agencies do this all the
time with great success. The Social Security Administration, for
example, has strict platform requirements for software and web
applications - JAWS, ZoomText, Dragon, and IE. These are provided to
all employees that need them. I imagine employees can use other
technologies, but accessibility is only supported on the platforms
specified.

The key is ensuring that the platform requirements match the real-life
needs of the users. If this doesn't happen, accessibility doesn't
happen.

While I suppose something like this could be legally conducted in
situations that go beyond the controlled environment (such as
procurement for the design of a public web site), such an approach
would be rather dangerous. Still, there are boundaries to how much
platform support needs to be provided. If I create Assistive
Technology X and your agency site doesn't work with it, should it be
the agencies burden to conform with my non-standard AT?

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Peter Krantz
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 7:00AM
Subject: Re: ATAG & specified technologies
← Previous message | Next message →

On Nov 7, 2007 10:41 AM, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Does requiring a particular platform make something inaccessible?
> (Specifically for a browser-based web application.)

It depends of course on what the required platform is. If it is the
"mainstream" platform, AT is likely to be available for it.

>
> Should someone procuring a CMS insist that it works with other
> platforms even when they don't have any other platform?!
>

If you consider a longer perspective it is never good to lock yourself
to a specific platform. Let's say that a year from now the
IT-department finds a business case for switching to Linux. If tools
rely on a specific browser this may make the transition a lot more
difficult. Although that is not an accessibility issue.

>From a user/usability perspective I would guess that a likely scenario
is that a user with special needs has learned to operate a specific
assistive device. If that device is tied to browser A and the CMS to
browser B I guess there would be problems.

The Swedish government also did an evaluation of CMS:es inspired by
ATAG (1) but the platform independence was of less importance than
other criteria.

(1): http://verva.se/verksamhetsstod/webb/matningar/pubverktyg/ - only
in swedish but send me a mail and I'll translate smaller passages of
interest.

Regards,

Peter

From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Wed, Nov 07 2007 10:50AM
Subject: Re: ATAG & specified technologies
← Previous message | No next message

On 11/7/07, Peter Krantz wrote:
>From a user/usability perspective I would guess that a likely scenario
> is that a user with special needs has learned to operate a specific
> assistive device. If that device is tied to browser A and the CMS to
> browser B I guess there would be problems.

I it does seem wrong to require a specific browser for a web based
application, but I'm not sure if it's an accessibility issue as such.
I guess if no one here has come across that as an accessibility issue,
then it's more of a business/organisational one.

Thanks,

-Alastair