RE: CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and Accessibility: document scope

So long as the experiences from the different groups lead to a better experience for the end users, particularly those who have to struggle due to various circumstances. If WCAG can benefit from paying attention to character encoding issues, then good. Let's see that happen.

The way I was interpreting it is this: The MWBPs are being considered by people who have already complied with WCAG. They see CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT as a MWBP and then wonder if this BP could affect their efforts regarding WCAG. Observing that encoding clashes could make their sites inaccessible (unintelligible), this undermines their accessibility efforts.

What didn't occur to me what that WCAG itself wasn't affected, because it ignored the problem. People wandering around the world with mobile browsers configured with varieties of encodings will make this problem more visible. And WCAG should move to address it.

Furthermore, I now understand (hopefully correctly this time) that the issue was really about what a MWBP compliant site would need to do to go the extra mile and become WCAG compliant. If this is the case, and you are right about WCAG not actually addressing the encoding problem, then the CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT doesn't actually do anything for you regarding WCAG. But it does do something for you regarding accessibility, and that's a good thing at least.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter
Sent: 29 November 2007 16:13
To: MWI BPWG Public
Subject: Re: CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and Accessibility: document scope

Thanks for this input on this. It is a problem as I can attest to as I
live in Spain and I'm accustommed to seeing triangles, question marks
and hash signs in the middle of words, even on bank statements and
official letters. I expect that users with completely different
character sets like Korean (or vice versa) can end up seeing nothing
at all. And this is more of a problem for some users than for others.

However, the document is about encouraging people who have adopted one
set of guidelines or best practices to understand what is involved in
taking on the other. In this case, that means that we need to say
"You've already adopted CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT, look what can now
do to comply with WCAG". This would seem to go with WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 11.3, "Provide information so that users may receive
documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content
type, etc.)" but there's no mention of character encoding and I don't
think it's something people have traditionally worried about. In WCAG
2.0 I don't even see content negotiation or character encoding
mentioned. So having complied with CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT doesn't
actually help with WCAG compliance.

So although it's something people *should* do to help accessibility,
it isn't actually required by any checkpoint. It's something for the
WCAG WG to look into.

cheers,

Alan


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-content-preferences






On 29/11/2007, Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> wrote:
> Actually, lack of encoding support could make the content harder *or impossible* to understand. This means that all your efforts to be WCAG compliant, with all your quick access to assistance, guidance, explanations and other pointers that your users expect to observe, could be completely undermined. You could leave vulnerable end users with nothing whatsoever, except perhaps a feeling that they (and not you) have done something wrong. Plus, the one site from where they might expect to get help regarding access to your content/service is the one site that is now inaccessible to them. Anyone who has gone to the effort of being WCAG compliant should be concerned about loss of accessibility due to encoding mis-matches.
>
> It's a pity that browsers don't have some out-of-band protocol for assistance that wouldn't rely on encoding/markup/image-format or other ordinary content that is presented in the main window. We've already seen how many browsers now present security status in this way (the padlock icon or the coloured address bar) so why can't some accessibility features be there too. Like a "panic button" when some dumb-*ss gives you encoding your browser can't handle?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> ---Rotan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter
> Sent: 29 November 2007 11:36
> To: MWI BPWG Public
> Subject: Re: CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and Accesibility (was Accesibility Review)
>
>  [CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT]
> > If the content encoding is not supported by the browser the text could
> > be renderer with rubbish (it depends on the language) making it harder
> > to understand.
>
> If a user has a reading disability then garbled text would be more of
> a problem, but is that really a sufficient benefit to motivate
> including it in this document? All users will have difficulty reading
> garbled text. We are saying "If your content is WCAG compliant, you
> may be sufficiently concerned to implement this BP on accessibility
> grounds." Maybe we can discuss this on the call today.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> On 28/11/2007, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:49:07 +0100, Miguel Garcia
> > <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > [SCROLLING]
> > > Limit scrolling to one direction particularly in the vertical axis, will
> > > also help people with cognitive limitations as some won't notice or will
> > > be disoriented by the horizontal scroll.
> > >
> > > [CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT]
> > > If the content encoding is not supported by the browser the text could
> > > be renderer with rubbish (it depends on the language) making it harder
> > > to understand.
> >
> > I agree with both of these statements.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Chaals
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
> >      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
> > http://my.opera.com/chaals              Try the Kestrel - Opera 9.5 alpha
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Email: achuter@technosite.es
> Blogs
> http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

>


-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 16:27:12 UTC