This Wiki page is edited by participants of the WCAG Working Group. 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.

Closed Functionality and 1.4.4, alternate

From WCAG WG
Jump to: navigation, search

Closed Functionality and 1.4.4 (Backup)

The above text is our preferred solution for 1.4.4. If the WG does not accept it, however, we have a backup proposal that removes 1.4.4 from the list and adds a note indicating we have not yet resolved whether 1.4.4 belongs in the list. Here is the backup proposal:

In Section 3 Closed Functionality, replace the first paragraph with:

As noted in the Introduction, WCAG 2.0 assumes the presence of a “user agent” such as a browser, media player, or assistive technology as a means to access Web content. Furthermore, many of the success criteria in WCAG 2.0 assume Web content will be accessed by ICT that has assistive technologies connected to it, where the assistive technologies present the Web content to the people with disabilities in accessible form. ICT products with "closed functionality" do not allow the use of some assistive technologies for all of their functions. In many cases such ICT products also lack a "user agent" or their equivalent. As a result, ICT following these success criteria by themselves will not make information accessible on ICT with closed functionality. Something else needs to be provided or be required in order to make the information addressed in these success criteria accessible. It is outside of the taskforce work statement to say what the additional measures are, but we can point out which success criteria depend on assistive technologies - and therefore would not work by themselves in products with closed functionality.

In Appendix A,

The following success criteria will be problematic for developers of closed functionality. They either discuss making information available in text (which can be read by assistive technologies) or making it "programmatically determinable" (rendered by a user agent, and readable by assistive technologies) or discuss doing something else to make content compatible with assistive technologies. Alternate accessibility provisions would be needed that would address the purpose of these success criteria for the closed functionality aspects of products.

  • 1.4.4 Resize Text - because, according to the intent, the web author's responsibility is is create web pages that do not interfere with user agent zoom features.

Note 3: The WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet resolved whether 1.4.4 Resize Text belongs on this list of Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality