Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


WCAG review

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page

Previous comments:

Techniques for Specific Technologies

Background from Feb 2014

  • In Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria add a new section:

    <h3>Techniques for Specific Technologies
    Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all cases to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to all potential users.

    • fyi, we've been putting this in the announcements and blogs for some time. {Shawn}
    • Should we suggest that this goes right under the Techniques are Informative section? Or at the end after the Using the Techniques section? Or somewhere else? {Shawn}
    • Agree - can we put it in multiple place? Otherwise I'm in favour of up-front. {Andrew}
    • Discussion in EOWG telecon minutes 14 Feb
      • Sharron: +1
      • <paulschantz> +1
      • <Bim> +1
      • <Jan> +1
      • <yatil> +1
      • Andrew: ok
      • Vicki: +1

Notes

  • WCAG has techniques for technologies that are not currently accessible for some users, e.g., Flash for Mac users, some WAI-ARIA functionality with less-than-modern AT, etc.
  • While we do want to focus on WCAG, we also want people to think broadly about accessibility. Accessibility is more than WCAG, user agent & AT support for accessibility are also important factors.

Additional Discussion on Wording

  • WCAG reply 19 Feb with proposed modified wording:
    Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that all uses of that technology will meet WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in ways that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria.
  • EOWG telecon minutes 21 Feb
    • Andrew: I see a change in the sense of what we meant. Their response is similar but not quite the same. It doesn't say quite the same thing.
    • Sharron: The way they they phrase it seems more wide open and easier to misinterpret.
    • Shawn: One of the examples is the fact that Flash is still not accessible with IOS. In our wording, the first sentence covers a situation like that. Their rewrite does not.
  • EOWG reply 21 Feb with Shawn possible wording (pending EOWG approval):
    Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.
  • A further edit (to take out "ensure that they"):
    Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to potential users.
  • EOWG thoughts:
    • I think the last one says what it needs to say a little more succinctly {Shawn}
    • I agree with Shawn, and like this wording, it gives the right message. {Bim, 2 April}
    • The rewording of the first sentence is a significant improvement over the WCAG proposal - the key is "used in all situations to create accessible content" highlighting that there is more to accessibility than just "technology will meet WCAG 2.0" and that the use context needs to be considered. {Andrew, 03.April.2014}
    • +1 {Eric, 2014-04-03}
    • +1 {Liam, 2014-04-04}
    • comment {name}

Location

WCAG WG suggested it be added to the existing General and Technology-specific Techniques section, instead of being a new section.

  • comment {name}
  • OK, though not ideal - I think it's important enough that it should have it's own section; however, I don't feel strongly enough to object. {Shawn}
  • Agree that a separate section would be preferred, but isn't essential. {Bim, 2 April}
  • +1 to Shawn {Eric, 2014-04-03}

New location question (March 2014)

New issue: Should it be included on technology-specific techniques pages of those for which this is a particular issue, such as WAI-ARIA, PDF, Flash? (Others listed in TOC?) At the top (before the TOC), or in the Technology Notes, or elsewhere?

  • Yes. I think it should go at at the top before the TOC, and in the Technology Notes section. {Shawn}
  • +1{Bim, 2 April}
  • yes, agree that both places is preferable approach {Andrew, 03.April.2014}
  • +1 {Eric, 2014-04-03}
  • comment {name, dd.month.2014}

Techniques

---

  • comment {name}

Understanding

---

  • comment {name}