W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-SC 4.1.1 Parsing draft review

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com

This questionnaire was open from 2023-10-11 to 2023-10-25.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review of proposed changes to Success Criterion 4.1.1 Parsing
4.1.1 Parsing bullet in SC problematic for Closed Functionality

1. Review of proposed changes to Success Criterion 4.1.1 Parsing

Read the draft proposal for Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 4.1.1 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you think this update to the existing guidance aligns with WCAG. Indicate whether this content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft and note any desired changes.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.	2
The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	4
The proposal isn't ready yet.

Details

Responder	Review of proposed changes to Success Criterion 4.1.1 Parsing	Comments
Loïc Martínez Normand	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	I don't think that the updated version of WCAG2ICT needs to refer to either WCAG 2.1 or WCAG 2.0. The new title of WCAG2ICT is "Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.2 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies", and the abstract says that the document "describes how the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 [WCAG22] and its principles, guidelines, and success criteria ...". There is no mention to WCAG 2.1 except in the section where we explain the contents of the current draft, and that will change in future versions. So my suggestion is to only have the text under the heading "WCAG 2.2 guidance". And then I think that we should remove the normative language (should) in the guidance (only in the second sentence) The proposed result would be as follows: "Guidance on Applying Success Criterion 4.1.1 to Non-Web Documents and Software This success criterion has been made obsolete and was removed from WCAG 2.2 for Web content. Therefore, it is also obsolete and removed as a requirement for non-web documents and software. Assistive technology does not parse non-web documents or software to obtain accessibility information, but instead relies on the user agent or platform software to provide that information through the accessibility APIs."
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	My thinking behind including WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 in this is that the previous version of the WCAG2ICT note will be marked as "outdated" once this note is published. While this document is about WCAG 2.2, there will be people that are working to meet WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 that may be reading this document for guidance. So....that leads to the dilemma that we've been saying "WCAG 2.2" everywhere. We could possibly make this document strictly WCAG 2.2 as Loïc states - which is a fair point. However, if we do this, then either in another section of this document or as an addendum to the 2013 WCAG2ICT document, we've got to address how 4.1.1 Parsing should be handled given the changes made to WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 that this SC is always met (and recommending it NOT be applied to closed functionality software). I think this will be a good discussion for the group to consider. An alternate way to handle this might be to create a section (either in an appendix or in the introductory content) that talks about that change in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 and how that might be interpreted for anyone trying to meet those versions of the standard.
Fernanda Bonnin	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	is the WCAG2ICT note for WCAG 2.2? how is versioning approached in a note? Asking because this will be the first instance of guidance referring to 2.2, 2.1 and 2.0.
Phil Day	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	Comment from JAWS test probably needs a response - I think what is being proposed is beyond the scope of the WCAG2ICT Task Force, and therefore should be proposed to the wider W3C WCAG accessibility group.
Mike Pluke	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Bruce Bailey	The proposed changes are ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.

2. 4.1.1 Parsing bullet in SC problematic for Closed Functionality

Read the proposed bullet for the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality software section for 4.1.1 Parsing and indicate its readiness to incorporate into the editor's draft.

4.1.1 Parsing—The intent of this success criterion was focused on using correct HTML syntax in content developed using markup languages so that different user agents or assistive technologies would yield the same result; since WCAG 2.2 has removed this success criterion, it should not be applied to closed functionality software.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The bullet can be incorporated, as-is.	1
The bullet can be incorporated, with changes.	2
The guidance needs to be something different, noted below.	3

Details

Responder	4.1.1 Parsing bullet in SC problematic for Closed Functionality	Comments
Loïc Martínez Normand	The guidance needs to be something different, noted below.	Given that 4.1.1 is not a success criterion anymore, I suggest that we just remove 4.1.1 from the section of SC problematic for closed functionality. Any note explaining what to do with 4.1.1 should be kept only in the guidance on applying 4.1.1 to non-web documents and software.
Mary Jo Mueller	The bullet can be incorporated, with changes.	I can go with Loïc's thinking on this. Since it has been removed and the EN 301 549 and Revised 508 standards did not apply this SC to closed functionality software, we can simply remove this from the list.
Fernanda Bonnin	The guidance needs to be something different, noted below.	related to my previous comment, if the note is around WCAG 2.2, do we need to mention parsing?
Phil Day	The bullet can be incorporated, as-is.
Mike Pluke	The guidance needs to be something different, noted below.	I agree with Loïc's comment - it no longer needs to be in the list of SC Problematic for Closed Functionality.
Bruce Bailey	The bullet can be incorporated, with changes.	I suggest "software with closed functionality" over "Closed Functionality software"