Understanding WCAG 2.0

Skip to Content (Press Enter)

This document is a draft, and is designed to show changes from a previous version. It is presently showing added text,changed text,deleted text,[start]/[end] markers,and Issue Numbers.

Hide All Edits   |   Toggle Deletions  |   Toggle Issue Numbers   |   Toggle [start]/[end] Markers   |   Show All Edits

Changes are displayed as follows:

Appendix B Documenting Accessibility Support for [begin add]Uses of [end add]a Web Technology

The documentation of accessibility support for [begin add]uses of [end add]a Web technology provides the information needed to determine whether it is possible to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria for a particular environment.

[begin delete]

WCAG 1.0 assumed that HTML was the only accessibility supported technology. This was a significant shortcoming of WCAG 1.0 and a major impetus for creating WCAG 2.0.

[end delete]

Accessibility Support documentation for [begin add]uses of [end add]a Web technology includes the following information:

Target environments are defined by the user agents and assistive technologies available to its users. Documentation of accessibility support involves detailed understanding of the [begin add]ways to use [end add]functionality of a technology [begin add] to meet success criteria[end add], and also of user agents and assistive technology. Because of this, vendors and developers of Web technologies and user agents are encouraged to provide this information about the accessibility support of their products. Similarly, developers and vendors of assistive technology are encouraged to provide this information about the [begin add]ways to use[end add] Web technologies [begin add] that are [end add]supported by their products. Authors should [begin add]need to document[end add][begin delete]undertake documenting[end delete] the accessibility support[begin add]ed ways to use[end add] [begin delete]of [end delete]a technology only when there is not reliable documentation available from vendors or testing groups [begin add]for those uses[end add].

For a controlled environment, such as a corporate workplace, the user agents and assistive technologies available may be a specific set of versions of user agents on a specific set of platforms. To determine whether [begin add]uses of [end add]a Web technology are accessibility supported in a target environment, an author checks that the user agents and assistive technologies available are in the set of supported user agents and assistive technologies listed [begin add]for those uses [end add]in the Accessibility Support documentation.

For a target environment like the Internet, authors may need to consider a much larger set of user agents, including older versions, and on a wider variety of platforms.

Environments that use different natural languages are different target environments. For example, the accessibility-supported [begin add]ways of using[end add] technologies for an English language environment may differ from those for an Arabic language environment, since there may be different user agents and assistive technologies that support these languages.

The documentation includes version-specific information about all the assistive technologies and all the user agents and the ways that they interact with one another. If support in these user agents is similar, it will be straightforward for an author to decide if [begin add]a documented way of using a[end add] technology is accessibility supported. If the [begin add]uses[end add][begin delete]features[end delete] supported are different in different versions, authors can only rely on the [begin add]uses[end add][begin delete]features[end delete] that are supported in the versions available to their users in determining accessibility support.

[begin add]

If a way of using a technology is not relied upon for conformance, the absence of accessibility support for that use does not prevent conformance of the Web page. So if the unsupported use does not occur in the content, or if there is a conforming version of that content available, the Web page still conforms. For instance, lack of accessibility support for interactive controls in a Web technology would not prevent uses of the Web technology for non-interactive content that are accessibility supported.

[end add]
[begin delete]

The author also reviews the feature support for any features used in his content. If the available user agents or assistive technologies lack support for features used by the content, the Web technology is not accessibility supported. Lack of support for features that are not used does not disqualify a Web technology. For instance, lack of accessibility support for interactive controls would not prevent use of the Web technology for non-interactive content.

[end delete]