RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"

Gregg,

I am not able to attend Friday and have problems with your proposal.  Defining new terms may change people's perspectives, but it does not address the problem.  These four requirements were not written for documents and SW and while the new terms add perspective and aid applicability and scope determinations, they do not fix the problems that I think WCAG (if it desires) or regulatory bodies should address.  I think we either change the charter so we can make a more appropriate recommendation, or we say in our report that these cannot reliably map to documents and SW.



I don't like but and willing to live with additional terms, but I don't think they solve the problem.



Pierce





From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:15 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force
Subject: RE: model for applying WCAG 2.0 to WCAG2ICT using a the concept of "objects of assessment"



REPOSTING THIS WITH A LINK RATHER THAN AN ATTACHMENT (since the attachment was stripped off for some)





Hi All,



I finished my writeup evaluating all of the SC,  looking for consistency,  and proposing an approach to resolving the final 4 plus the conformance requirements based on the concept of "object of assessment".



It is attached.



the abstract is below



nite.



G



Use this link to download the document : http://goo.gl/Shf8d





This whitepaper is provided to help in the discussion of how to apply WCAG 2.0 to non-web content and software in a manner equivalent the way WCAG 2.0 was designed to be applied to web content.  It starts with a discussion of a concept of "objects of assessment" and then shows how this can lead to a better understanding both of WCAG 2.0, and how to apply it to non-web ICT.   It shows that such an approach leads to both an agreement with the 34 provisions the WCAG2ICT task force has already reached consensus on.  But it shows how the WCAG2ICT decisions can be explained by a couple simple rules rather than as 34 individual decisions.

It also leads to a resolution for the final 4 provisions as well as the WCAG Conformance requirements.  This resolution comes from a better understanding of what we are assessing on 3 of the 4 and how they are different from the others (leading to our problem in resolving them).  A resolution to the 4th is also proposed.  The paper concludes with some observations and a full summary (listing each provision) and showing what the solutions would look like in place.

(As a bonus the summary also shows what the task force's suggested global replacement of  electronic documents with "non-embedded content" would look like - thus closing one of our action items).



(see page 12 for a 1 page summary of the recommendations, then read paper for rationale)





Gregg

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

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.

Director Trace R&D Center

Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering

and Biomedical Engineering

University of Wisconsin-Madison



Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International

and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project

http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net