Edit comment LC-2687 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2701 Next: LC-2702

Comment LC-2687: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com> on behalf of Microsoft; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Inherent in the nature of web content is that it is necessary for a user agent to be present in order for the web content to be consumable. It is further assumed that an operating system is present to support the relevant user agents and assistive technologies. We recognize that it is appropriate for WCAG 2.0 to contain itself to matters relevant only to web content. But non-web ICT accessibility standards inherently need to address architectural matters more specific to the context of software, operating systems, and other context that are beyond the scope of WCAG. For example, Section 508 in its current form and various drafts contain provisions far beyond the scope of WCAG. This is also the case for various drafts of M376 standard. In short, WCAG 2.0, even after translation, would be an incomplete set of guidelines in the context of non-web ICT. W3C should make it clear to the audience that applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT cannot be considered a complete set of accessibility guidelines and that efforts such as M376 EN and Section 508 refresh are necessary to yield appropriate and complete results.; Related issues: LC-2702
(space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: We agree that additional requirements are needed especially for software acting in platform role(s). The focus of the work is on "content" as it occurs in both electronic documents and software. Other aspects of software are outside the scope of the Task Force and are covered in separate provisions being drafted for Section 508 (in the US) and Mandate 376 (in Europe). As you point out, these are the purview of the US Access Board and the EU M376 standards development team. It would be inappropriate for us to step beyond our role of discussing how WCAG would be applied to ICT and into the Access Board and M376 standard team's role and make comments on what the overall requirements for ICT should be or what portion of this WCAG would cover. We have, however, included a statement in the introduction explaining that WCAG 2.0 may not be sufficient to ensure accessibility for non-web ICT. Specifically, "This document does not address gaps in requirements that could potentially materialize when WCAG 2.0 is used with non-Web ICT; it is therefore important to note that WCAG 2.0 may not be sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility in non-Web ICT." @@@ [insert comment if we change docs to non-embeded content -- IF IT HELPS HERE]; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)