W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > July 2017

Re: Accessibility conformance (was RE: Can a publication change over time?)

From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:07:20 +0530
Message-ID: <EC895699D0DD4BBE9ED205248C2E34F7@AvneeshHP840>
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, "Romain" <rdeltour@gmail.com>, "Charles LaPierre" <charlesl@benetech.org>
Cc: "Garth Conboy" <garth@google.com>, "Laurent Le Meur" <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, "AUDRAIN LUC" <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>

Indeed, this is an existing weakness in web accessibility certification.
A version of webpage is certified, but if web designer updates the page next day, then the new version may be inaccessible. WCAG has been very successful model but it do suffers from such implementation flaws!

[Jason] I take a somewhat different view of WCAG. If a conformance claim is asserted, one of the required components of the claim is the date on which it is made. This is a required component because, indeed, the content may subsequently change, in which case there is no guarantee that it continues to conform, and that the claim is still true. It’s the author’s responsibility to ensure that the content continues to conform, and to update their conformance claim if necessary. I would argue that the conformance claim only holds with respect to the content as it was on the date given in the claim.



Avneesh: Sure, this is conceptually true. But web pages are updated with higher frequency than the publications. This makes it more difficult to ensure that all updates of webpages are certified.



Unfortunately, I think metadata in a publication are amenable to the same problem, since it remains the author’s responsibility to update the metadata as the content is revised. The only solution that comes immediately to mind would be an accessibility conformance assertion which is digitally signed by the party who makes it, and which contains a cryptographically strong hash of the resources to which it applies (e.g., an entire publication). There are no reliable and comprehensive automated tests of accessibility specification conformance, so a weaker requirement than “it’s still the same content” wouldn’t provide a guarantee that it continues to conform.

 

Avneesh: This can be one of the solution for this issue. Another similar candidate is to maintain a record of the certified publication and its version in the repository of certification agency.
We will discuss all this in accessibility task force calls in future.


With regards
Avneesh


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.



Thank you for your compliance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 13:37:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:14 UTC