Edit comment LC-2669 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2661 Next: LC-2662

Comment LC-2669: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Duff Johnson <djohnson@commonlook.com>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
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!; Related issues: LC-2663
(space separated ids); WG Notes: I think we should Hold on this item until we finish our discussion on the navigation items and our definition of navigation etc.We agree that users navigate documents in many ways besides links. However, navigating content by paragraph, section, etc., is done by the user agent (including AT). WCAG doesn't speak to that sort of navigation - it only addresses navigation mechanisms explicitly put into the page(s) by the author of those page(s). Note that other success criteria - SC 1.3.1, SC 2.4.6 - speak to the need for structure, headings, etc. User agents in non-web ICT may utilize this information to provide means for navigating. ================== [WCAG WG] Comments ============== Change to We agree that users navigate documents in many ways besides links. The Understanding WCAG 2.0 INTENT for 2.4.6 specifically refers to headings used for navigation. Other success criteria - SC 1.3.1, SC 2.4.6 - speak to the need for structure, headings, etc. User agents in non-web ICT may utilize this information to provide means for navigating.; Proposed Resolution: We agree that users navigate documents in many ways besides links. The INTENT for 2.4.6 in Understanding WCAG 2.0 specifically refers to headings used for navigation. Other success criteria - SC 1.3.1, SC 1.3.2, SC 2.4.3 - speak to the need for structure, programmatically determined reading sequence, a focus order that preserves meaning and operation, etc. User agents in non-web ICT may utilize this information to provide means for navigating.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)