Edit comment LC-2676 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2689 Next: LC-2691

Comment LC-2676: 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:
SC 1.3.1 - Leaving aside that I've no idea how this SC would be applied to kiosk applications, it's worth pointing out that SC 1.3.1 already bears a very heavy load. Attempting to cram the world of document-specific or workflow-specific information to this one SC won't generate clarity. Here's an illustration.

Take the case of a scanned page added as the last page of an electronic document. Let's assume all the text on this page has been made accessible; the page image's content is adequately represented via text and tags.

- What of the underlying scanned page-image itself? Does it still need to be represented in the logical structure? Does the simple fact that the page's source was a scan (as is evident to a sighted user) constitute "information" that must also be programmatically determinable to conform with 1.3.1?

- If so, is the fact of a page-sized image made available to AT (in addition to the text) adequate information? If so, then should be OK to write out the image as an artifact (not in the logical structure) because we've already represented the contents in an accessible manner?

- Maybe we have to tag the image if the page has been signed, but not if the page hasn't been signed?

- Does conformance require that each of the signatures be represented individually? Perhaps segmentation of the source-image is required in order to have a image (and thus alt. text) associated with each signature?

The line between "incidental information", and "data critical to understanding the document" isn't always apparent; this is all the more so with formats that are more internally complex than HTML, or present situations that just don't occur with markup-langugage-style technologies.

The WCAG2ICT draft shows zero sensitivity to such complexities.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: PREVIOUS PROPOSED RESOLUTION: NEW PROPOSED RESOLUTION (11Jan13): ---------------------------------- Kiosks are an example of devices with closed functionality. Please see our <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict>> 2nd public draft, in which SC 1.3.1 is included in <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality_sc>> Appendix A Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality, and see our explanatory text about <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality>>Closed Functionality in chapter 3. We believe this addresses the kiosk scenario you raise. The example you raise of scanned images is not unique to non-web ICT. A web page might include (or consist completely) of a scanned image, and WCAG 2.0 would nonetheless apply to it. Furthermore, technologies such as WAI-ARIA marking up the appropriate <div>s and <span>s corresponding to the scanned image can be used to make such a scanned image on a web page accessible. Page signing likewise is not unique to non-web ICT, and so likewise there is no reason to treat that differently than it is already treated by WCAG. Further, the issue you raise about "incidental information" vs. "data critical to understanding" is absolutely present on the Web, which already comprises more than HTML content. The Task Force doesn't see anything unique to non-web ICT in this issue. We would welcome specific examples in any follow-up comments you have on this topic. With respect to questions about conformance, this Task Force has not yet developed guidance on how WCAG 2.0 conformance applies to non-web ICT. Oldest PREVIOUS PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ----------------------------- Thanks for the questions. RE KIOSKS Please see appendix A of our new version of WCAG2ICT. success criterion 1.3.1 is one of the SC we note as problematic for closed products. RE your other questions -- see comments marked with TF: intermixed with your questions below Take the case of a scanned page added as the last page of an electronic document. Let's assume all the text on this page has been made accessible; the page image's content is adequately represented via text and tags. - What of the underlying scanned page-image itself? Does it still need to be represented in the logical structure? Does the simple fact that the page's source was a scan (as is evident to a sighted user) constitute "information" that must also be programmatically determinable to conform with 1.3.1? TF: If the text on the page is also presented, that would constitute alternative text presentation. The scanned page is usually included to contain signatures, and that information should also be represented in text. All of this can be directly inferred from the language of the success criterion and the INTENT text. - If so, is the fact of a page-sized image made available to AT (in addition to the text) adequate information? If so, then should be OK to write out the image as an artifact (not in the logical structure) because we've already represented the contents in an accessible manner? TF: if in fact it there is absolutely no information on the page that is not already in text, that may be true -- but then why is the last page (only) included as an image? - Maybe we have to tag the image if the page has been signed, but not if the page hasn't been signed? TF: That follows. We have never seen a last page included as an image where there was no additional information of any kind on the image. - Does conformance require that each of the signatures be represented individually? Perhaps segmentation of the source-image is required in order to have a image (and thus alt. text) associated with each signature? TF: The success criterion only requires what the success criterion says. If the information is conveyed, there are no specific constraints on the way it is done (other than what is in the success criterion - if any. The line between "incidental information", and "data critical to understanding the document" isn't always apparent; this is all the more so with formats that are more internally complex than HTML, or present situations that just don't occur with markup-langugage-style technologies. TF: We believe there are equally complex formats and information on the web - which is not constrained to HTML or to markup languages.; Proposed Resolution: Kiosks are an example of devices with closed functionality. Please see our <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict>> 2nd public draft, in which SC 1.3.1 is included in <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality_sc>> Appendix A Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality, and see our explanatory text about <<URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/#closed_functionality>>Closed Functionality in chapter 3. We believe this addresses your concern regarding the applicability of success criterion 1.3.1 to kiosks. Scanned images are not unique to non-web ICT. A web page might include (or consist completely) of a scanned image, and WCAG 2.0 would apply to it. Furthermore, technologies such as WAI-ARIA can be used to mark up the appropriate <div>s and <span>s corresponding to the scanned image to make such a scanned image on a web page accessible. Page signing is also not unique to non-web ICT, and so there is no reason to treat that differently than it is already treated by WCAG. Further, the issue raised about "incidental information" vs. "data critical to understanding" is absolutely present on the Web, which already comprises more than HTML content. The Task Force doesn't see anything unique to non-web ICT in this issue. We would welcome specific examples in any follow-up comments you have on this topic.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)