Edit comment LC-513 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-473 Next: LC-1437

Comment LC-513: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

This guideline doesn't require the use of technologies, for example markup languages, in accordance with the semantics defined in specifications. Assistive technologies such as braille translators, as well as content transformation tools, rely upon the assumption that elements and attributes of markup languages are used to convey the meanings prescribed in specifications. To the extent that content departs from this requirement, programmatic determination of structural and other aspects of content is precluded, being reduced instead to a probabilistic matter requiring heuristics to be introduced by the software developer. Although the definition of "programmatically determined" refers to support by user agents, it doesn't explicitly refer to standards governing the technologies used in the content.

Proposed Change:

Add a requirement under this guideline to the effect that, for each technology in the baseline that is defined in a specification, every feature of the technology is used in conformity with the meaning and purpose prescribed in the specification. Even better, require it to be used in accordance with the meaning, purpose and syntax prescribed in the specification. Alternatively, if the above is too strong a requirement, restrict it at level 1 to every feature used to enable the structure, purpose or meaning of the content to be programmatically determined. That is, if the feature is used to enable programmatic determination for purposes of meeting the guidelines, then it must be used in accordance with the syntax and semantics defined in the specification governing the technology. This falls short of a requirement of full syntactic and semantic correctness, but the stronger requirement could be added at level 2 or level 3.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMC] Discussed in the 16 May 2006 Team A call, propsal sent to list: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006AprJun/0187.html> (do not accept) CURRENT WORDING UNDER REVIEW - ===================== The group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time. In the end, the group concluded that although strictly adhering to specifications had many benefits, it also has limitations. It is one reason why all the technical specifications are voluntary and why companies often vary from them. With regard to WCAG, the working group tried to restrict itself to its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" do relate to accessibility. However, others did not. So requiring this went beyond accessibility. Regarding the second suggestion above, "features used to enable the structure, purpose or meaning of the content to be programmatically determined," are all required already by 1.3.1 so there would not be a need to add a new SC in 4.1. Discussed in the 29 March 2007 telecon: Resolution: close as proposed http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/03/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not accept}; Resolution: The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is not part of the specification. The working group must work within its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our #1 technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)