W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org > September 2012


From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:45:47 -0400
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5735ED0D92A3E6469F161EB41E7C28A81D1BBE83CD@MAILR001.mail.lan>
The main concern that Neil raises regarding the applicability of WCAG 2.0 to ATMs and Kiosks is something that was communicated to us in M376 by representatives of the ATM Industry Association (ATMIA). These are, indeed, very valid concerns.

Working face-to-face with ATMIA representatives, we in M376 agreed that WCAG 2.0 could not always be directly applied in a number of cases as these were really cases of closed functionality. Closed functionality is something that we have not yet addressed in WCAG2ICT, so it is currently difficult to assess to what extent it will be possible to alleviate Neil's concerns.

I think that it is perhaps fairer to say that the work of the WCAG2ICT group is not yet complete rather than the document (or us) is "lazy"! I believe that Neil's input acts as very valuable reminder that we need to be sure that the final outcome of our work addresses his main concern.

Best regards


From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: 07 September 2012 00:27
To: public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org
Cc: Neil Soiffer
Subject: Fwd: WCAG2ICT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Neil Soiffer <NeilS@dessci.com<mailto:NeilS@dessci.com>>
Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Subject: WCAG2ICT
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org<mailto:public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>

I have a lot of trouble trying understand how this document helps anyone. On the one hand, the document refers to WCAG "programmatically determined" repeatedly, and this doesn't make sense in many closed systems such as ATMs or Kiosks.

On the other hand, it lacks details to help me as a developer figure out what I need to do.  E.g., my personal focus is math.  A question that often comes up is "what is required for math accessibility?"  A search for the term math comes up empty as does a similar search of  WCAG 2.0 (not good).  Having spent a good deal of time reading the WCAG guidelines, I know that math is covered under 1.1.1 (text alternatives) or 1.3.1 (information, structure, and relationships).  So how to meet 1.1.1 in a non-web environment?  WCAG2ICT says to provide a text alternative.  Similarly, for 1.3.1, it says the structure should be "programmatically determined or are available in text".  But these don't make sense in many situations away from a PC such as a kiosk in a museum. The focus should be on providing an alternative presentation such as speech or braille, not on the actual underlying content.

The bottom line is that it seems that the document is just lazy:  it doesn't do the work needed to understanding non-web context and simply parrots WCAG. It leaves it up to the reader to try and figure out if WCAG makes sense for the particular technology or not and how to adopt WCAG to the appropriate situations... but isn't the purpose of this document to inform the reader about how WCAG applies to their non-web situation?


Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, MathDaisy, Equation Editor ~
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 10:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:35:55 UTC