W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > October 2012

RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:47:19 -0500
To: "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>, jbrewer@w3.org
Cc: "'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCD1E73B0.32D0F229-ON86257A8D.004DF625-86257A8D.00513CC1@us.ibm.com>
Pierce,

It's true that the four success criteria (2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3)
were written for the web and they are either automatically or easily met by
non-web ICT if we accept Gregg's proposal. I agree with Gregg's
interpretation of how WCAG should be applied though. It wasn't meant to
apply to parts of web pages. If it was, then 2.4.2 could be interpreted to
mean you have to have headings for each paragraph.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "while the new terms add perspective
and aid applicability and scope determinations, they do not fix the
problems that I think WCAG (if it desires) or regulatory bodies should
address"? This sounds like you think we should be defining new requirements
for software and documents. Maybe Judy can weigh in here but I don't
believe we could get our work statement expanded to do that as it is
clearly out of scope for the W3C.

We have made so much progress as a group and I really hope we can come
together to finish the work that we were charged to do.

Andi



From:	"Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>
To:	"'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Date:	10/04/2012 08:25 AM
Subject:	RE: model for applying  WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the
            concept of  "objects of assessment"



Gregg,
I am not able to attend Friday and have problems with your proposal.
Defining new terms may change people’s perspectives, but it does not
address the problem.  These four requirements were not written for
documents and SW and while the new terms add perspective and aid
applicability and scope determinations, they do not fix the problems that I
think WCAG (if it desires) or regulatory bodies should address.  I think we
either change the charter so we can make a more appropriate recommendation,
or we say in our report that these cannot reliably map to documents and SW.

I don’t like but and willing to live with additional terms, but I don’t
think they solve the problem.

Pierce


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:15 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of
“objects of assessment”

REPOSTING THIS WITH A LINK RATHER THAN AN ATTACHMENT (since the attachment
was stripped off for some)


Hi All,

I finished my writeup evaluating all of the SC,  looking for consistency,
and proposing an approach to resolving the final 4 plus the conformance
requirements based on the concept of "object of assessment".

It is attached.

the abstract is below

nite.

G

Use this link to download the document : http://goo.gl/Shf8d



This whitepaper is provided to help in the discussion of how to apply WCAG
2.0 to non-web content and software in a manner equivalent the way WCAG 2.0
was designed to be applied to web content.  It starts with a discussion of
a concept of “objects of assessment” and then shows how this can lead to a
better understanding both of WCAG 2.0, and how to apply it to non-web ICT.
It shows that such an approach leads to both an agreement with the 34
provisions the WCAG2ICT task force has already reached consensus on.  But
it shows how the WCAG2ICT decisions can be explained by a couple simple
rules rather than as 34 individual decisions.
It also leads to a resolution for the final 4 provisions as well as the
WCAG Conformance requirements.  This resolution comes from a better
understanding of what we are assessing on 3 of the 4 and how they are
different from the others (leading to our problem in resolving them).  A
resolution to the 4th is also proposed.  The paper concludes with some
observations and a full summary (listing each provision) and showing what
the solutions would look like in place.
(As a bonus the summary also shows what the task force's suggested global
replacement of  electronic documents with “non-embedded content” would look
like – thus closing one of our action items).

(see page 12 for a 1 page summary of the recommendations, then read paper
for rationale)


Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net











graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 14:48:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC