Re: Too Late now but....

I do not think that there are likely to be any practical problems for our team caused by the WCAG2ICT Closed Functionality section. It was very well thought out and will all be very helpful in our work.

I just think that Gregg has identified that the title of the section might be potential confusion caused to some readers who are less clear about what is and what is not related to closed functionality.

Mike
________________________________
From: Sam Ogami <sam@ogami.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:33 PM
To: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>; Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
Cc: AGWG Chairs <group-ag-chairs@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Too Late now but....

Hello Gregg, All,

Closed products are and can be closed by some physical constraint.  For example, blocking USB or other ports, fixing a device to a wall.  Part of the problem has to do with WCAG SC not taking into account limitation of context of use of web content or hardware.  WCAG2ICT charter was to apply WCAG SC as best as it could to ICT.

Some of the guidance in the Closed Functionality section helps bring clarity to those situations.  It is helpful and guides implementors with alternatives in some SC.  @Gregg If you could share more information about what EN 301 549 task force concerns are with WCAG2ICT Closed Functionality section? Is it just the title? How is it misleading or confusing?  WCAG2ICT key term of Closed Functionality and Assistive Technology, that was worked on multiple times by the TF helps provide greater context. See https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#closed-functionality and https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#dfn-assistive-technologies



The suggested title changes are problematic:
      "Other considerations when applying WCAG to non-web content."  Problem: Closed functionality can be web content.
      "Closed Functionality and other issues that ICT must deal with that Web Content does not" Problem: This implies that following the information in the section is suffect for accessibility of ICT.  It is not.

Sam Ogami

________________________________
From: Bruce Bailey
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 4:04 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Cc: AGWG Chairs
Subject: RE: Too Late now but....


+1, but I am quite okay with deferring the issue to WAI staff, TF, TF leads, and AG chairs.



FWIW, it might not be “sealed and shipped” unit the date changes on the public-facing WG note.

  *   W3C Working Group <https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/> Note<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/> 5 September 2013<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/> (same as previously)
  *   W3C Editor's <https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/> Draft<https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/> 03 October 2024<https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/> (today)



From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 2:09 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Too Late now but....



I think we misnamed our Closed Functionality Section

  *   It does indeed talk about closed functionality issues / items
  *   But it also includes things that have nothing to do with closed functionality (i.e.,. do not relate to the ability to work with assistive technologies)

Some examples

  1.  orientation — this has to do with hardware like kiosks or wall-mounted ICT where there is no opportunity to “reorient” the screen, and so there is no reason to require that the content be reorientable.    This has nothing to do with AT
  2.  Contrast -  this again has to do with the contrast of hardware — but not AT compatibility

and there between half-a-dozen and a dozen more like that.



The section I  think should have been titled something like

  *   Other considerations when applying WCAG to non-web content
  *   Closed Functionality and other issues that ICT must deal with that Web Content does not

We could included Closed functionality as a sub category

along with  “other things that need to be handled differently when applying to non-web ICT.” as a second…..



Not sure exactly how or what we should have called it

and this is a week to late to be “already too late”  since we just sealed and shipped it.



But this is just a heads up — that our the name of our section is misleading and confusing until you realize it covers other things as well.



It might be useful when talking about this or encountering confusion by others with this important section.



NO ACTION ITEM.  (just a heads up)



g



PS  This all came out of the application of WCAG2ICT in the EN 301 549 task force.