Closed Functionality and 1.4.4 (Preferred)

In response to the WCAG WG request that we provide better rationale for why 1.4.4 should be in the list of SC that are problematic for Closed Functionality (Appendix A), we propose the following:

(Note, you can see the proposal with changes marked as proposal #7.)

In Section 3 Closed Functionality, replace the first paragraph with:

As noted in the Introduction, WCAG 2.0 assumes the presence of a “user agent” such as a browser, media player, or assistive technology as a means to access Web content. Furthermore, many of the success criteria in WCAG 2.0 assume Web content will be accessed by ICT that has assistive technologies connected to it, where the assistive technologies present the Web content to the people with disabilities in accessible form. ICT products with "closed functionality" do not allow the use of some assistive technologies for all of their functions. In many cases such ICT products also lack a "user agent" or their equivalent. As a result, ICT following these success criteria by themselves will not make information accessible on ICT with closed functionality. Something else needs to be provided or be required in order to make the information addressed in these success criteria accessible. It is outside of the taskforce work statement to say what the additional measures are, but we can point out which success criteria depend on assistive technologies - and therefore would not work by themselves in products with closed functionality.

In Appendix A

The following success criteria will be problematic for developers of closed functionality. They either discuss making information available in text (which can be read by assistive technologies) or making it "programmatically determinable" (rendered by a user agent, and readable by assistive technologies) or discuss doing something else to make content compatible with assistive technologies. Alternate accessibility provisions would be needed that would address the purpose of these success criteria for the closed functionality aspects of products.

1.4.4 Resize Text - ~~because, according to the intent, the web author's responsibility is is create web pages that do not interfere with user agent zoom features. -~~ while the success criterion notes that text should be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology, it also makes the assumption that a user agent is rendering the text. This provides solution strategies that would not be present for some types of closed ICT (e.g. using the zoom or text enlargement features in a browser, the ability of a browser to re-layout the text and scroll it). We note that one of the advisory techniques for 1.4.4 is "Providing large fonts by default", which may address the underlying needs of users with low vision in closed ICT - particularly in cases where only a small number of words are being displayed in a font that is much larger than 200% of a typical web page. Where this large text fills the entire screen, 200% enlargement may not be possible or helpful.