WCAG 2.1 feedback

Hello there,

I read through the proposed changes, and everything seems reasonable and testable. I especially liked 2.7.1, "accessible name," as I did not realize there was an issue with the provided use case.

I wanted to note that I think the proposed metadata about accessibility features and level is a fantastic idea. Giving search engines the tools to identify content that conforms to a desired level or includes specific features would be a powerful reward for websites that take the time and effort to become as accessible as possible. It parallels the way responsive design started out as a novelty, then after it became mainstream, became a ranking signal and Google began rewarding good mobile experiences with a "mobile-friendly" tag in search results.

One final note. We are actively working to become WCAG 2.0 AA compliant, and our biggest challenge is PDF publications. It would be extremely helpful if there were a clearer way to check PDFs and concrete steps to ensure compliance. One of our biggest issues is PDFs that are presented as digital flipbooks to average users, but whose content is not available to screen readers, and that use case is a particular challenge because stripping away the flipbook animations and interface removes the interactive element desired by stakeholders for average users.

Thank you!
Elaine Shannon
Web Developer and User Interface Specialist
Office of University Communications

ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY
The Catholic and Marianist University
One Camino Santa Maria
San Antonio, Texas 78228
210-436-3327
www.stmarytx.edu<http://www.stmarytx.edu/>