Edit comment LC-2652 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2651 Next: LC-2673

Comment LC-2652: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Olaf Druemmer <o.druemmer@callassoftware.com>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
[This email has been submitted as a comment on the July 27, 2012 draft of "Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies"]

From my point of view WCAG2 is a solution looking for a additional problems to solve. Invented with web content in mind, at least some would claim.agree that it became quite successful - at least for web content. Now, being encouraged by that success it seems WCAG2 proponents felt like they should find other stuff to which WCAG2 concepts could be applied. A little bit like trying to figure out what a hammer - quite good at dealing with nails - could do with screws. While some functionality could be achieved, hammers and screws will never be a good match. Instead, in order to deal with screws, one would have to start thinking starting form what screws are, not even thinking of a hammer. A concept essential to screws - 'turning' - does not even exist in the world of hammers and nails.

Along the same lines I think in order to come up with something useful and meaningful for non-web content.documents, one would have to start from non-web content/documents, not from a tool that has been proven to work well with web content/documents. Otherwise there is a drastic risk to miss essential aspects, and it could easily happen that WCAG2 concepts cover non-web content/documents quite well where actually they don't (or it is at least unknown / undefined to which degree they cover them). And thus the quality and value of "applying WCAG2 to non-web ICT" is undefined / unknown.

Maybe the WAI is not even the ideal context to start doing something about non-web content/documents...?

Olaf; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Previous proposed resolution: The W3C did not initiate the concept of applying WCAG outside of Web Content. Rather it was the US Access Board who noted that the guidelines for electronic documents and software in the TEITAC report paralleled WCAG 2.0. The Access Board has proposed that WCAG 2.0 be used as the standard for non-web content and software in the Section 508 refresh process. Current drafts of European Mandate 376 (M376) standards are following the US lead. The W3C is simply providing information about a W3C standard in response to the actions of the US Access Board and EU M376 standards development team. The task force work statement is consistent with the WCAG working group charter that includes the following under its scope: "Coordinating with other entities adopting and using WCAG 2.0." If you feel that WCAG 2.0 should not be used for non-web content and software, then we would suggest that you address your comments to the U.S. Access Board and EU M376 standards development team.; Proposed Resolution: The W3C did not initiate the concept of applying WCAG outside of Web Content. Rather it was the US Access Board who noted that the guidelines for electronic documents and software in the TEITAC report paralleled WCAG 2.0. The Access Board has proposed that WCAG 2.0 be used as the standard for non-web content and software in the Section 508 refresh process. Current drafts of European Mandate 376 (M376) standards are following the US lead. Through this task force, the W3C is developing a common understanding of how WCAG 2.0 might apply to non-web ICT for organizations and entities who are already seeking to so adopt and apply WCAG 2.0. By doing this we increase the likelihood that these applications of WCAG 2.0 will be consistent, and in keeping with the Principles, Guidelines, and Intent of WCAG 2.0. The task force work statement is consistent with the WCAG working group charter that includes the following under its scope: "Coordinating with other entities adopting and using WCAG 2.0." Comments on the use WCAG 2.0 for non-web content and software, can be sent to the U.S. Access Board and/or submitted as part of the EU M376 review process. ================== [WCAG WG] Comments ============== change the last sentence of the first paragraph The W3C created a task force that brought in ICT companies, and the M376 committee, and Access Board to join with WCAG member to create this guidance because it would both identify specific issues in apply WCAG 2.0 to ICT (documents and software) and increase the likelihood that these applications of WCAG 2.0 will be consistent, and in keeping with the Principles, Guidelines, and Intent of WCAG 2.0. and a NEW second paragraph Please note that the introduction points out (in paragraphs 7 and 2) that " This document does not seek to determine which WCAG 2.0 provisions (principles, guidelines, or success criteria) should or should not apply to non-web ICT, but rather how they would apply, if applied." also that " Although this document covers a wide range of issues, it is not able to address all the needs of all people with disabilities. Because WCAG 2.0 was developed for the Web, addressing accessibility for non-Web documents and software may involve provisions beyond those included in this document. Authors and developers are encouraged to seek relevant advice about current best practices to ensure that non-Web documents and software are accessible, as far as possible, to people with disabilities."; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)