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

Re: examples of sets of documents

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:46:25 -0400
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Loďc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B785EAFA-A964-41DD-8D22-A67FB6704365@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>

I'm not sure why we are back on the topic of wanting to throw some SC out.  Especially for this item.   

It DOES apply. 
It is a cognitive access issue but that should not make it less important.
It IS easy to meet -- but so is adding alt text to a picture (remember that we don't require that alt text be good). 
It is no more easy for ICT than for Web content (it is pretty easy there too). 
If you DON'T do what is required then things will and do fail - and things are then less accessible. 
We have text that works.

People challenged that any sets existed and examples were supplied. 
The samples can all be made to meet the SC by just giving the files a reasonable name when they are downloaded or created or sent out.  If you don't, then you have to add links.  If you don't then you need to do something else to create a second method (search is always a first and will work on any document that meets the other success criteria ) 

What am I missing? 

I think it is helpful to note that some of the reasons that it was included in the WCAG 2.0, even though it was easy to meet, was to a) bring attention to this issue of people with cognitive disabilities having trouble navigating complex sites, b) to provide a place for advisory techniques to live that addressed this general topic (things that are important but can't be applied everywhere or in testable form so they couldn’t qualify for required status, and c) to be sure that the easy things were in fact done. 


I suggest that we replace  "web page" with software product as we have elsewhere.  That make sense because many web pages are web apps.  In fact many software products are indeed now also available online as a web app (at a single URL making them a "web page". )   

This would mean that any software applications (that are produced and sold as a set - and not bundled) could meet this success criterion by being given a meaning filename (which most - BUT NOT ALL - have).  OR they can provide links to the other apps in the set from one of the apps if for some reason they don't want the apps to have a recognizable file name.    

NOTE: A "set" would have to meet all the same criteria we talked about before for a set -- so bundling etc would not create a "set" (although most bundled software have a readable name so would meet it anyway)

I just added this to the Website.   

Does anyone have a real-world problem with this?    It is parallel with WCAG interpretation and is easy to do, though not always done.   And it leaves an anchor point for others writing advisory techniques about APP navigation by people with cognitive disabilities a good place to put them for those interested in this real problem. 


On Sep 13, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> wrote:

> Gregg,
> We have been laboring under two critical constraints:
> That we must find a way to make all SCs apply
> That we cannot - in our NON-NORMATIVE document - re-cast the criteria based on the purpose & the significantly different world of non-web ICT to make it better apply
> In this most thread we've been pushing against the first constraint.  But several of us have also suggested that we need to question the second constraint (with WCAG WG).
> Peter
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 14:14:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:46 UTC