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

RE: About ISO 9241-171 (Re: WCAG2ICT Meeting minutes for 18-Sept-2011)

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:28:02 -0500
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Cc: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFD37A49C7.76729F36-ON86257A7E.0049BE9C-86257A7E.0049FA98@us.ibm.com>
Just to clarify. That was a comment that was made in the meeting but is not
being proposed as a reply to the public comment we received with regard to
other standards.

Thanks for the additional viewpoints.

Remember that decisions are recorded as "RESOLUTIONs" in the minutes. All
other text is just notes to help us remember important points brought up in
our discussions but should never be taken as the consensus position of the
task force.


From:	"Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
To:	Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Mary Jo
Cc:	"public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Date:	09/19/2012 07:50 AM
Subject:	RE: About ISO 9241-171 (Re: WCAG2ICT Meeting minutes for

Completely agree with this.


WCAG is not written well for regulatory usage in my opinion either.
Regulation is different than “guidance”.

From: Loïc Martínez Normand [mailto:loic@fi.upm.es]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:44 AM
To: Mary Jo Mueller
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: About ISO 9241-171 (Re: WCAG2ICT Meeting minutes for 18-Sept-2011)

Dear all,

Sorry for not being very active in WCAG2ICT, but these days I cannot fit my
schedule to be able to better participate. In addition to M376 work I have
plenty of academic related issues due to the beginning of classes.

I've just read the minutes from yesterday's meeting and there is one
sentence that is very strange to me: "171 was not written as a standard
that could be enforced through regulation. It was designed as a collection
of good things to do."

To me, as one of the members of the ISO WG that drafted this standard, this
affirmation is wrong because ISO 9241-171 is written as a proper standard
and contains both requirements (shalls) and recommendations (shoulds) and
it was written with regulation in mind (in fact that is the reason that
forced us to have requirements).

The introduction of ISO 9241-171 even says (emphasis is mine): "... this
part of ISO 9241 addresses the increasing need to consider social and
legislative demands for ensuring accessibility..." and, as part of the user
groups of the Standard, it includes "buyers, who will reference this part
of ISO 9241 during product procurement".

And the scope of 9241-171 says (emphasis is mine): "It is intended for use
by those responsible for the specification, design, development, evaluation
and procurement of software platforms and software applications".

So I think that we cannot use the idea of ISO 9241-171 not being
enforceable through legislation as a proper reply to the comments received
to the WCAG2ICT draft.

Best regards,


On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>

Here's today's meeting minutes: www.w3.org/2012/09/18-wcag2ict-minutes.html

Best regards,

Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758
512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698

www.ibm.com/able and w3.ibm.com/able
IBM Accessibility on Facebook ▼ IBMAccess on Twitter ▼ IBM Accessibility on
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader.”  ~ John Quincy Adams

Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:31:35 UTC

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