W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Discussion: Applications

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 02:45:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7E3C92.5090500@w3.org>
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
CC: Eric Velleman <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Peter, All,

Good point about the functionality of individual page elements versus 
the page as a whole. I would personally interpret the latter from the 
WCAG 2 conformance requirement 5 on "non-interference":
  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#cc5>

"If technologies are used in a way that is not accessibility supported, 
or if they are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the 
ability of users to access the rest of the page [...]"

So, in the example outlined below, one could argue that if a duplicate 
of a functionality is accessible then the functionality is effectively 
usable. However, one would also need to demonstrate the non-conforming 
functionality does not interfere with the overall accessibility of the 
page. For example, users may get stuck on the inaccessible piece when it 
is not apparent to them that there is an accessible alternative, in 
which case the page would not be usable altogether.

In conclusion, the mere existence of an accessible alternative for a 
functionality is probably not sufficient to demonstrate conformance with 
WCAG 2; one would need to demonstrate non-interference too.

Question out of curiosity: how frequent are there situations in which 
the effort needed for all the necessary work-arounds to ensure that 
inaccessible components do not cause interference for the users would 
actually outweigh making these components directly accessible? It may be 
good to have real examples as a basis for the discussion.


On 5.4.2012 18:46, Peter Korn wrote:
> Eric,
> As a start, it might be worth noting in introductory text the range of things
> being covered by this methodology. In step 3 on selecting a representative
> sample, we might again note that for complex web sites&  for large web
> applications, there may "Exemplar functions" of a web app which should
> definitely included, as distinct from "rarely used functions" - some of which
> should be perhaps be included anyway as part of the sampling process (to not
> ignore them entirely).
> By the way, I thought of what might be a better example to use: a configuration
> page/dialog for setting per-instance-overridable defaults (e.g. whether the
> default currency is expressed in Dollars vs. Euros vs. Yen, which can be
> expressly set each time by the user when they enter the currency in the
> spreadsheet web-app). If that config page/dialog has an accessibility error
> (e.g. an unlabeled combo-box), but the per-instance setting has no error (e.g.
> the "set currency for this field" config page/dialog) - then... there is a good
> argument to be made that the importance of the accessibility of the default
> configuration setting isn't so great.
> Ummm.... this raises another question... In Section 508 among other places we
> have a notion that all functionality must be accessible, not necessarily all
> ways of achieving all functionality. The example I made in the paragraph above
> also connects to this question. It would be a clear WCAG conformance failure if
> one part of a page failed one of the checkpoints. BUT... what about the
> situation in which the failed part of the page was fully duplicated elsewhere.
> This is a contrived edge-case for a single web page, but not at all unusual for
> a complex web site or web application (after all, we already have the notion of
> multiple-ways in WCAG). Is there any conformance distinction to be made between
> a feature/aspect failure when it is the sole way of doing something vs. when it
> is one of multiple ways and the other ways are accessible?
> Regards,
> Peter
> On 4/5/2012 8:45 AM, Velleman, Eric wrote:
>>  Dear all,
>>  What shall we say about auditing complex applications that are very large and offer enormous amounts of features (some important, some less important)? Example would be online document editors, online mail, online photo applications. Or should we point to ATAG and UAAG?
>>  Kindest regards,
>>  Eric
> --
> Oracle<http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522<tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> Green Oracle<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>  Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment

Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 00:45:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:20 UTC