This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2651 LC-2652 LC-2653 LC-2654 LC-2655 LC-2656 LC-2657 LC-2658 LC-2659 LC-2660 LC-2661 LC-2662 LC-2663 LC-2664 LC-2665 LC-2666 LC-2667 LC-2668 LC-2669 LC-2670 LC-2671 LC-2672 LC-2673 LC-2674 LC-2675 LC-2676 LC-2677 LC-2678 LC-2679 LC-2680 LC-2681 LC-2682 LC-2686 LC-2687 LC-2688 LC-2689 LC-2690 LC-2691 LC-2692 LC-2693 LC-2694 LC-2695 LC-2698 LC-2700 LC-2701 LC-2702 LC-2817 LC-2818
Previous: LC-2661 Next: LC-2662
WEB-CENTRIC A key example of how WCAG 2.0’s web-centricity makes application to “non-Web ICT” problematic is the question of navigation. In WCAG 2.0 the normative language is developed on the basis that “navigation” in electronic content occurs by way of “links” – controls deliberately embedded in the content by the author for navigational purposes However, the ability to navigate content is a fundamental aspect of accessibility for users of documents – irrespective of links. Non-web documents – from PDF to DOC to PPT files to databases and others, may not include any links at all. Users customarily navigate such files using entirely different (and not always adequate) means such as headings, bookmarks, thumbnails and other features. WCAG 2.0 is silent on navigation besides links. If applied to non-Web ICT, therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that developers could safely ignore navigational considerations if their documents or other ICT do not include links or other context-changing controls. That’s not exactly the desired outcome!