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

+1 on Andi’s response

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  "Enabling the Web"

 <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com

 

From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: October-04-12 10:47 AM
To: Crowell, Pierce; jbrewer@w3.org
Cc: 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force'
Subject: RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"

 

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

Inactive hide details for "Crowell, Pierce" ---10/04/2012 08:25:18 AM---Gregg, I am not able to attend Friday and have problems"Crowell, Pierce" ---10/04/2012 08:25:18 AM---Gregg, I am not able to attend Friday and have problems with your proposal.  Defining new terms may

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> 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/> http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
 <http://raisingthefloor.org/> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---    <http://gpii.net/> http://GPII.net