RE: 2.4.2 Page Titled (RE: ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT)

This is a note that has existed, without change, since the 2013 WCAG2ICT, so it isn’t just me that is asserting it. It was an agreed note by the original WCAG2ICT task force, and per the surveys you also agreed. In fact, the WCAG2ICT TF asked for an update to the WCAG intent which states: “In cases where the page is a document or a web application, the name of the document or web application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the page.”  The parallel to this for software, that aligns with the intent, is that the name of the software application would be sufficient to describe the purpose of the software.

X is an application, known by that name and so is Shazam. These are the names/labels that also appear on the mobile application screen to identify the icons for these applications. So it follows, that a window identifier by that same name should also be considered meaningful.

Best regards,

Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager


From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 1:29 PM
To: Mitchell Evan <mevan@tpgi.com>
Cc: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>, WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 2.4.2 Page Titled (RE: ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT)
I realize that you “assert” that — and so does the note However you can’t have a note that adds or subtracts from a requirement. And Shazam and X and Morphic and most other names of software do not describe the function or purpose. . So they

I  realize that you “assert” that — and so does the note

However you can’t have a note that adds or subtracts from a requirement.

And Shazam  and    X   and    Morphic    and  most other names of software do not describe the function or purpose..    So they fail.   And a note cannot make them pass when they do not pass.

Gregg




On Apr 1, 2025, at 4:49 AM, Mitchell Evan <mevan@tpgi.com> wrote:

Hi Gregg, thanks for raising this. I hope we can provide some answers to help WCAG2ICT and EN 301 549 converge.

I assert that brand names do generally satisfy 2.4.2, with this explanation:  https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/275#note_17762<https://labs.etsi.org/rep/HF/en301549/-/issues/275#note_17762 >

On the other hand, I am concerned that a programmatic title for software might not exist on some open platforms.

To address these concerns I’ve added proposals in our “Analysis for SC language changes” spreadsheet.

Cheers,
Mitchell

From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com<mailto:maryjom@us.ibm.com>>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:50 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>; WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT

CAUTION:EXTERNAL EMAIL SENDER!

Gregg,

I’m not aware of any law preventing trademarked names from being used as a descriptive name of the window containing the application using that trademark. Do you have any references/links to such laws?

2.4.2 Page titled does not require “unique” names. WCAG also doesn’t require the title be programmatic. The WCAG language simply requires that Web pages have a title that describes the topic or purpose.

Best regards,

Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Accessibility Standards Program Manager


From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Date: Saturday, March 29, 2025 at 1:04 PM
To: WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ERROR spotted in WCAG2ICT
I think what we have is an ERROR in WCAG2ICT FOR 2. 4. 2 Page titled for software this should be “does not apply” with a note NOTE: Although the name of a software product could be a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose, software

 I think what we have is an ERROR in WCAG2ICT


FOR
2.4.2  Page titled

for software this should be “does not apply”   with a note

NOTE: Although the name of a software product could be a sufficient title if it describes the topic or purpose, software names are trademarked and trademark names cannot by law be descriptive names. It is not practical to make software names both unique and descriptive.


 OR

we should change it to

In windowing environments - the WINDOW should have a meaningful  TITLE or NAME

 Note: “Name” refers to the programmatically determinable attribute “name” for the screen or window



or some such

What we currently have does not make sense.

If someone does think it does  — please explain how to conform to it for  Excel, or  Skype  or  Shazam on an iphone  or Android.