This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2819 LC-2820 LC-2821 LC-2822 LC-2823 LC-2824 LC-2827
Previous: LC-2821 Next: LC-2823
2.5 Set of Software: This section appears to have been sculpted in an attempt to (very narrowly) avoid current implementations of popular document authoring products (such as Microsoft Office). Maybe it snags Apache Open Office (because OO can open one app from another without opening an existing document) - I'm not sure. The details about how to construe a "set" seem ambiguous and arbitrary… and most importantly, I cannot determine how the distinctions offered are substantially relevant to accessibility in any nontrivial sense. Perhaps one way to make this point is to ask: what sets of real-world software *does* this definition include? Is there an example? And if not, then what is the point of such a definition in the first place? Or, am I to take away the impression that if Microsoft were to be so foolish as to add a feature that would provide for opening Excel from Word without going to the Start menu then all of a sudden their Office suite meets the definition of "set" in WCAG2ICT… and this is worth highlighting? I just don't get it. Presumably, the practical effect of such a definition will be to cause implementers to avoid X, Y or Z features that might threaten to appear as "a set" while still delivering "suites" (not "sets") of software to users. I read through the usage of "set of software" in the Notes for various Success Criteria and I'm left fairly confused. The text feels very over-engineered. There appear to be nuances and shades of meaning that simply hint at ways to get into trouble. I got very little enhancement to my own understanding from all the sloshing about. - Counterexamples, 2nd bullet is missing the words "is to" before "open a document". - Counterexamples, 3rd bullet. How can it possibly matter how the software is *sold*? Isn't it more a question (I guess) of the installation rather than the procurement?