Change Log: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for Web
This page records change requests and changes made to the
Resource Page Why
Essential for Web Accessibility. Please send additions or
Last updated on $Date: 2006/03/11 22:52:14 $ by $Author:
Change requests from EOWG teleconference 10 March 2006
Change requests on table of "fragmentation drivers" and "reasons for
- DONE [on standards restrictions] Consider
clarifying the consequences more
- NOT DONE BUT SLIGHT CLARIFICATION [on local languages]
Consider alternative to "allows" though not necessarily so far as
- DONE [on but it's worldwide] Add something like "...and is
supported by the same kinds of assistive technologies"
- DONE [on single country] Change myth to belief, to avoid
casting negative tone
- TRIED; HOW ABOUT FOR A LATER VERSION?
[somewhere?] Look for place to add language refering to the
fact that developers are communicating with the whole
world, not just the local audience -- but recognize that some
developers aren't interested in the broader audience
- DONE [unified market] Clarify the leveraging effect more;
not coming through
- DONE Also [editor's note] check consistency of how refering
to standards harmonization throughout the document
- DONE Complete copyedits [editor's note: heavily copyedited
the first subsection of "current situation"]
- DONE Also [editor's note] re-synchronize the new table text
with the linearized version of the table.
- DONE Add WAI-TIES link/acknowledgement.
- Also [editor's note] set up/send out survey form, w/
Change requests from EOWG f2f meeting 2 March 2006
- DONE bold "stds harmonisation" in para 1 overview
- DONE bold "a consistent international set of technical
standards for accessibility"
- DONE breakout (and try bolding) web content etc to a list
- USED THE SOLUTION ABOVE try the following edit: "This
uses "standards harmonization" to refer to the adoption of a consistent
international set of technical standards for web accessibility.
Technical standards for web accessibility refer to content, browsers
and media players; authoring tools used to develop Web content, and the
accessibility of the authoring tools themselves."
- DONE BUT CHECK ACCESSIBILITY try presenting as a table of
driver and answer - and shorter / more concise
- USED DIFFERENT LEAD-IN also try a better intro sentence -
maybe talking about "misconceptions that have contributed to ..."
- DONE add something to resource section, as preface before
links, such as: "While governmental laws and policies naturally will
differ according to local needs, it is still possible to refer, within
governmental policies, to a consistent set of international technical
standards... see the following documents for examples of different ways
that this can be done."
- DONE add "Similarly, organizational policies,
while necessarily differing according to the circumstances of
org, can still reference a common set of technical guidelines"
- DONE add in references to wcag and atag 2.0
- DONE stress more that it is a *world*wide*web and the rest
of the world is looking at your material
- NOT THE KEY PRIORITY Under Abstract consider including
along the lines of ".. and calls for wider (or greater) participation
and cooperation for developing a single set of standards."
- DONE In the first sentence under Overview, should
semicolons be replaced with commas? Or present the items in a list?
- NOT DONE; IT'S ALREADY A LIST Same comment applies
to Action Steps.
- NOT DONE; UNNECESSARY AND WORDY I suppose Consequences (h2
heading) is part of Current situation (which is also h2). For clarity,
better to say Consequences of fragmentation?
- DONE After stating what is meant by fragmentation upfront
under overview, it may be better to drop the words
"Different types of modifications" under current situation and begin
directly with "Fragmentation of Web accessibility guidelines"
- [DONE] remove note "will be offered to public &
- [DONE-CONFIRM!] changed "unified international standards
content, auth tools, user agents..." to "a consistent international set
of technical standards"
- [DONE-CONFIRM] Copyedited throughout, particular check
- [DONE-CONFIRM!] Added "technical" standards to
policies, for which we are not discussing harmonization
Change requests from EOWG survey in May 2004
- [DONE] last 2 bullets under "current situation" are not
- [DONE] explain "evaluation tools"
- [DONE] typo -- extra "g" in step 5
- [DONE] under organizations, explain "sector" e.g "economic
- [DONE] under consequences, change "web developers" to "web
for parallel structure
- [CONFIRM - ADD WHEN MOVE TO NOTE FORMAT IN FUTURE, AND
FORMER CONSTRIBUTORS] list specific acknowledgements
- [FIXED DIFFERENTLY] replace "for" with "of"
I think the last two "for"s should be "of"s in: "In this document
"standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified
international standards for accessibility of Web content, for authoring
tools used to develop Web sites, and for user agents including browsers
and media players."
As is, it states that there should be unified standards but does not
include for accessibility: "In this document "standards harmonization"
refers to the adoption of unified international standards for
accessibility of Web content, [the adoption of unified international
standards] for authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and [the
adoption of unified international standards] for user agents including
browsers and media players."
I think what is meant is standards for accessibility: "In this document
"standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified
international standards for accessibility of Web content, [the adoption
of unified international standards for accessibility] _of_ authoring
tools used to develop Web sites, and [the adoption of unified
international standards for accessibility] _of_ user agents including
browsers and media players."
corrected would be: "In this document "standards harmonization" refers
to the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility of
Web content, of authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and of user
agents including browsers and media players."
- [DONE] guidelines plural, techniques lower case
"There is sometimes discomfort with a guideline not developed locally,
yet WAI guidelines have been developed with input from many countries
around the world."
Guideline singular is awkward here - recommend making it plural
"W3C continues to update and refine the WAI guidelines and supporting
Techniques documents and"
Techniques should be lowercase to match lowercase guidelines used
throughout - because here it refers to multiple documents, not a
- reality checks for credibility
- [DECLINED: YES, AT LEAST AS PART OF REGS-TYPE
WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THE LEVEL OF MANY ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS]
"There are sometimes barriers to adoption of non-ISO standards
some governments, yet W3C is the leading standards organization for the
Web industry, and many of those same governments have already
standardized onto HTML and XML, which are W3C specifications."
This argument seems a bit uncomfortable. Much of the focus is on
countries adopting accessibility standards as legal requirements. Have
any governments adopted HTML and XML as legal requirements? If not,
it seems like it's an apples & oranges comparison.
- [DONE] "some authoring tools remove accessibility
alternative text or captions." I thought we couldn't come up with any
that still do that so we were
going to either leave that out, or say they did it in the past.
- [DECLINED: SOME LARGE ORGANIZATIONS, AND SOME
ORGANIZATIONS, PROVIDE TOOLS & TRAINING] "When there is
fragmentation of standards... Organizations must
provide different authoring tools, evaluation tools, training resources
and technical assistance for their Web developers,..."
- In practice, I doubt many orgs provide different authoring tools, and
maybe not any of the others.
- [DECLINED: YES, AS PER CHAPTER BY TREVIRANUS &
& WORK OF IMS GLOBAL LEARNING CONSORTIUM] Can we support the
in the "information repositories"
- [DONE, ROUGHLY] "When there is fragmentation of
audiences spanning different regions, countries, or sectors must
carefully monitor different sets of requirements. Organizations must
provide different authoring tools, evaluation tools, training resources
and technical assistance for their Web developers, which can take
resources away from actually implementing accessibility. They must push
harder to make the business case for accessibility within the
Last sentence not quite right - "push harder" isn't quite the right
and "they must" is too all-inclusive (plus, every sentence in that
paragraph has a "must" and I'm not sure any of them are quite right).
Instead, I think the idea is something like: The increase in cost and
effort of fragmented standards makes the business case [more difficult
to get adopted].
- [DONE] "Availability of authoring tools conforming to
1.0 is key
making the Web accessible because so many people who publish content on
the Web would have at their fingertips tools making it easy to create
accessible Web sites."
"at their fingertips" not quite right - e.g., tools cost money so not
- [DONE] Editor missing.
Add "Editor: Judy Brewer" at bottom?
- [DECLINE, SEEMS UNLIKELY] "For Web developers...
accessible Web sites first
requires... a deliberate effort to apply WCAG 1.0."
Someone might argue against the assertion that developing accessibility
Web sites _requires_ WCAG1.0.
- [DONE, DIFFERENT EDIT] grammar & word correction
"Assist in preparing authorized translations of WAI guidelines (once
authorized standards policy goes into effect).g"
Should it be: "(once THE authorized TRANSLATIONS policy goes into
- [EDITED DIFFERENTLY] Authoring tools
The last paragraph is properly written as subjunctive -- don't we wish
AT [editor -- AT= authoring tools here] were followed!
My wistful thinking/diatribe:
The excuse/alibi that AT evolution awaits WCAG 2.0 is getting stale,
given that WCAG 1.0 [editor: ATAG 1.0?] has been
generally ignored. The long development cycle for changing AT is also,
as newer releases aren't
much improved in the tools I've tried to use.
- [EDITED] Action Steps
5. unclear ...(once authorized ?translation? standards policy goes into
effect) XgX I find "Translating WAI Documents"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/translation.html which might be mentioned under
related resources below.
- [CONFIRM-EMPH on POLICY LINKS? EDITED FOR NEW RESOURCES]
I believe it needs a pointer to where in WAI to find the guidelines
referenced throughout. WAI Resources: Guidelines
Change requests for next version
- [from 14 May 2004] consider adding example of uaag - wcag
in next version
- [from 14 May 2004] consider linking to "component synergy"
resource on WAI site once that is available
Change log and requests from 14 May 2004
- [DONE] don't reference Participation page. add to list for
after Participation page is updated
- [DONE] after 2nd sentence in organization: add something
"and this might take time away from implementing Web accessibility."
[ADDED: ", which can take resources away from
actually implementing accessibility."]
- [DONE; AND ADDED FOR LATER] in browser subsection, 2nd
2nd sentence: remove it. add to list for later: add example if good one.
- [DONE] browser section: first paragraph, add short sentence
inbetween 1st & 2nd sentence: Conflicting standards for
can slow implementation of accessibility support.
- [DONE] try to add 1 or 2 sentences to browser subsection
highlighting the synergy between browser and content standards
- [ADDED FOR LATER] maybe add to list for later: after
done (that discusses synergy between different WAI standards), consider
linking to it
Change log and requests from 7 May 2004
New change requests:
- Complete copy-editing of document; substantial rewording of
sections but no substantial changes in meaning.
- [DONE, BUT NEED SOME DISCUSSION] see comments from Andrew
- [DONE, BUT NEED SOME DISCUSSION] see comments from Andrew
- [DONE] ntroduce the term fragmentation better -- this is
- [DONE] fix second sentence of 2nd para in browser section
- [DONE] add examples for complex visuals (images like maps
- [DONE] consider adding something assist tech &
develop dialog in the action item list, perhaps as "promote
dialog" AND try to fit it in with the browser section as well
- [DONE] change screen enlarger to screen magnified
- [DONE] maybe try adding captioned media
- [DONE] check conformance profile for assistive technologies
render the information [check w/ ian jacobs on that]
- [DONE] broaden action item one (see andrew's comment) to
other working groups;
- DISCUSS point them to information on how to participate
- [DONE] continue to highlight wcag 2.0 involvement
- [DONE] add an option to monitor development of guidelines
- [DONE] try saying everything about involvement in w3c as
item, with different options, but make it sound simple. nested section?
- [DONE] add an action item about about translation
- [DONE] redirecting energies from localization to awareness
- [DONE] replace some of the 2nd phrase of roll forward
with wording from andrew "update new standards"
- [DONE] recheck wording of promoting uaag and atag against
- [DONE] number the action steps (disclaimer about
- [DONE] think about reorganizing the document more clearly
sections such as: what it is, why it occurs, the consequences, the
benefits of harmonization, what to do about it
- [DONE] try moving fragmentation types up, splitting types
- [DONE] try to group other sections under consequences
- [DONE] don't overdo the positive; need people to understand
there is a significant issue
from 2 March 2004
browsers ... section
- [RECHECK] change "key" (so not confusing with keys on
- Judy go over section with Matt to see what the issues are
browsers & multimedia players for middle paragraph - replace
examples or figure out how to address controversial examples
- add the idea that if assistive technologies did more, there
be less burden on authors, and on what's included in WCAG. also maybe
directly counter the mis-assumption that AT can do it all. (might need
a separate section on assistive technologies afterall)
- try to capture the interrelationship/cycle of a WCAG
that user agents don't support it so authoring tools don't want to
include it, & such
- [DONE] if needed, start with transition that we're now
about other than content guidelines - then go to fragmentation (to
match other format) - go into more explanation of the fragmentation of
browsers implementation, CSS as an example of what we don't want to
happen! say burden was on millions of developers, rather than if a few
browsers had done it right - then go into harmonization & world
- [DONE] "web standards" needs clarification
- [DONE] depending on how section changes: explain "render
reliably" more - test on different platforms ... also that _was_ a
problem but now not so much of an issue ...
- [DONE] more PWD perspective, consequences, on bad browsers
- [DONE] add something about user agent guidelines
- last one increased collaborations between web application
developers with regard to implementation of WAI guidelines &
looking forward to new requirements
- [DONE] make the action steps list a longer list of shorter
- [STILL NEED] something about clarifying that currently most
fragmentation is in content guidelines (rather than AT & UA)
from 27 February 2004
- [DONE] Overview, 3rd paragraph ("The World Wide Web
(W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has ...") move to the end as
solution to above paragraphs.
- [DONE] Overview, 3rd paragraph ("Together these three
provide complementary solutions resulting in more comprehensive and
effective accessibility. W3C/WAI is currently developing advanced (2.0)
versions of these guidelines."). change to not degrade 1.0 versions
with 2.0, maybe something like, "W3C continues to advance by refining
and updating ..."
- [DONE] Abstract: make subjunctive (e.g., "It examines how
adoption of a consistent standard for Web content accessibility drives
..." to "It examines how adoption of a consistent standard for Web
content accessibility WOULD drive[-s-] ..."
- [DONE] Abstract: change: "This document explains the key
that standards harmonization plays in increasing accessibility of the
Web for people with disabilities." to " ... key role that harmonization
of standards play ..."
- [RECHECK] Web Developers: first sentence missing verb.
- Web Developers: check current status of authoring tools -
still strip out accessibility stuff? (chuck
system he knows of, helle check danish
check with matt)
- [DONE] Web Developers: "It requires working around features
authoring tools that make it hard to build accessible Web sites: for
instance, tools that produce inaccurate markup, or that remove
accessibility information such as alternative text or captions."
clarify SOME tools.
- plus, charmane sending to list idea about implementations
also being part of the issue
- [DONE] Fragmentation: think about WHO it's impacting
tool developers, web developers, policy makers, etc.) so be more
specific about audience impact & add split back into the list)
- [DONE] Fragmentation: Editor attempt to highlight bullet
- [DONE] Fragmentation: "The belief that disability
might be different locally -- yet the same types of disabilities exist
around the world" -- change to "might be unique locally"
- [DONE] Fragmentation: drivers section: try to copyedit away
negatives, be careful of tone & negative message
- [DONE] Fragmentation: "local organizations' interest in
role in writing their own guidelines -- yet there is a great need for
other forms of implementation support from local organizations" needs
clarification - there are things that local organziations do need to
do, but not write their own guidelines!
- [DONE] Action Steps: look at rewording roll-forward
"increased understanding on the part of policy-makers and standards-
developers of the relationship between harmonization of Web
accessibility standards and the speed of Web accessibility progress;"
- [DONE] Action Steps: last one, try adding roll forward idea
not necessarily terminology)
from 13 February 2004
- [DONE] Modify tone of "With so many reasons why standards
harmonization is essential to Web accessibility, there are many
compelling reasons that drive the development of divergent standards"
(misguided): be careful not to legitimize the fragmentation drivers
- [DONE?] Add "thinking that gov't can't point to a w3c
or foreign standard
- [DONE] Try rebutting the fragmentation drivers in place,
not wanting to adopt something not developed locally, join the
- [DONE] In terms of rebutting frag drivers, important to
how much this has already been an international effort, also give more
background on broad participation to date in at least one other part of
- [DONE] Change "under development" to "continuous
- don't make it look like a distinct new world, emphasize
continuity between 1.0 and 2.0 and into the future
- try using the term "convergence path" ... convergence
... maybe fit in consensus somewhere around here ... look at wcag 2.0
as an international standard ... convergence ...
- [Assistive technologies very fragmented themselves -- stds
harmonization helps reduce the difficulty there, and is cost-effective]
- user agent guidelines ... standardized ... help assistive
technologies work better ... it's the same as the authoring tools as
well ... compare how the similar benefits derive ... [eg build around
508 sec 1194.21]
- [DONE] emphasize cost-effectiveness of stds harmonization
- [***for later: consider collecting abstracts from our
into an collection of abstracts]
- [DONE] change region to region or country
- [DONE] move the 2nd comment up to 1st place in overview
- say something about stds harmonization actually supporting
innovation[?] if possible
- action section: emphasize wcag 2.0 is part of a
- [DONE?] action section: make them more concrete and explain
to ... include a broader range of needs and audiences ... who do you
want to include ... more different countries ...
- [DONE] fix copyright date
- rapid reviewers: william, henk, sylvie, carol, justin.
from 19 December 2003
[RECONFIRM? following items are not yet agreed to]
- [DONE] add in direct mention of authoring tool
guidelines, and explain how they relate to wcag, so that people can see
how the one leads into the other
- [DONE] continue to seek appropriate way to add in mention
- [DONE] add in a section explaining relationship between the
- [DONE] in particular, strengthen discussion of authoring
again towards end of document & in action steps, however
losing other key arguments
- [WHERE????] need to add in the point that harmonization of
accessibility guidelines also promote greater understanding and social
acceptance of web accessibility (harmonization leads clarity, which
leads confidence, which results in better acceptance)
- [STARTED] action steps ought to be action steps not grand
e.g. demand atag-conformant auth tools and use the "selecting"
questions to query your friendly software vendor. shorten current
action steps phrasing but then say "for instance, do this by ..."
- [DONE] action two: flip the involvement to first place
- [DONE] action one: promote better understanding (action
ought to start with verbs)
- [DONE] add an action item: recommending that organizations
in the possibility of a roll-forward provision
- [PLACEHOLDER] develop a better transition to the discussion
wcag 2.0 as a convergence target
- [PLACEHOLDER] need to add in the point that developing
guidelines obligates organizations to maintain those guidelines into
the future as web technologies evolve -- explain that this is because
the web technologies are constantly evolving
- [PLACEHOLDER] qualify that in certain cases, local
be essential, but that this can be done by establishing the
international guideline as the minimum standard to be met. enable local
additions, but explain the detrimental impact of changing accessibility
provisions on implementation in authoring software -- and
that even the dropping of accessibility provisions may also have some
impact. break it into step by step layers of impact.
- [DONE] [editor experiment] better acknowledge the variety
motivators for fragmentation when discussing the cases of local
- [PLACEHOLDER] do talk about incremental benefit from user
side -- add the paragraph back in about user agent guidelines --
from 31 October 2003 [all
- [DONE] FIRST: attempt to do an outline of what the argument
- [NOT] attempt to split the document into two sections 1.
harmonization of web content impacts authoring tools 2. everything else
- [DONE] provide some background or history near the beginning
- [NOT -- TOO INDIRECT] consider: currently left to the
management's initiative ... if good auth tools channel one towards
implementing ... then web xs can be achieved much more speedily
- [DONE] clarify and eliminate redundanies in first paragraph
the executive summary
- [DONE] reconsider the introduction and executive summary
- [DONE] add up front a clear statement of what harmonization
- [DONE] consider replacing "examines" with "explains" in
- [DONE] clarify that the harmonization is by different org
countries, rather than harmonization of WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, etc.
- [DONE] add something clearer in intro about overall
web accessibility of standards harmonization
Authoring Tools Section
- [DONE] build the first two paragraphs in key role of
tools into the web developers section
- [NOT -- TOO INDIRECT] clarify misunderstanding - auth tools
the key tools for building web sites ... when some tools allow you
implement some features, and others don't, then this confuses the
- [DONE] Consider switching third (starting with "For
tool developers, deciding which features to build into software")
from 10 October 2003 [all
- [DONE] look for ways to orient beginners w/o adding much
additional text up front
- [SUPERSEDED] change first subheading to "Executive Summary"
- [DONE] clean up references to organizations, companies,
- [DONE] put the essence/main point at the very beginning
- [DONE] think of other metaphors of piecemeal &
e.g., content guidelines harmonization is catalyst for driving
improvement in authoring tools. better authoring tools create a cascade
effect in availability of accessibile Web content - accessible content
would cascade across the Web
from 3 October 2003 [some
- [PLACEHOLDER] Add in section on User Agent accessibility
- [DONE] Better align the introduction with the content of
document once user agent material is in there.
- [PLACEHOLDER] For user agent section (or elsewhere?),
incorporating something on designing to different browsers as some of
the context for other sources of fragmentation in the past.
- [PLACEHOLDER] Add in specific examples of divergent
For instance, note that in such & such an area, requirements
on such & such checkpoints or provisions, and then trace
implications onto the authoring tool itself and trace through to the
- [PLACEHOLDER] Consider somehow addressing issue of WCAG 1.0
2.0 differences and transition in the "current status" section.
- [GAVE IT A SEPARATE SECTION INSTEAD] Include the benefits
assistive technology both in pwd section and in user agent section.
- [PLACEHOLDER] Add a separate section just on assistive
--- assistive technology needs to be at the same level as user agents
and authoring tools.
- [WHAT WAS THIS???] Careful about conformance levels being
considered standards in some places; overall, the document needs some
orientation to the terms used.
- [PLACEHOLDER] Focus more on what can be done rather than a
negative litany, and provide more explicit suggestions to encourage
individuals and organization in and outside of W3C to comment
- [DONE] Remove the suite nav (and fix the stylesheet bug)
- [DONE] Shorten text in section -- too verbose. A
reduction would be nice ...
- [DONE] Reinforce the emphasis in the document on the
tool role in moving from "piecemeal" to "wholesale" change
- [DONE] Move current status much nearer the top of the
- [DONE] Shorten subheadings
from 26 September 2003
Comments are from 26 September 2003 EOWG teleconference discussion of
September version of Why
Harmonization is Essential for Web Accessibility.
- [DONE] document title should be something other than just
"standards.html" -- gives the impression that the document is broader
in scope than it is.
- [DONE (kept)] yes it is important to have a section
at least some extent on the current status of
harmonization/fragmentation of Web accessibility standards.
- [DONE] need to add a section reflecting the experience of
organizations with global reach, where they cross many jurisdictional
boundaries and are therefore subject to a wide variety of different
requirements; it is extremely difficult to research and monitor
different requirements for Web accessibility in every region. this
section could be labeled "for implementation managers" standardization
allows organizations to have a centralized resource for
cross-functional initiatives such as making the organization's entire
Web site accessible.
- [DONE] perhaps more could be said from the perspective of
of assistive technology and the impact on them.
- [DONE] be careful about the use of the term "definition" in
introduction when you really mean "description."
- continue to address WAI guidelines other than WCAG, but
differentiate references to each in the text more crisply.
- [DONE] look up Bert
Bos' document and Karl
Dubost's document which both relate to the topic of standards
harmonization, and cross-reference or coordinate with as appropriate.
© 1994-2006 W3C
(MIT , ERCIM , Keio ), All Rights
rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with