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

Most importantly, I think that if the 2013 WCAG2ICT got something wrong, we should make the correction.  The fact that EN 301 549 drafting hit a speed bump with applying 2.4.2 to non-web software means that we need to improve upon the current note.

Second to that, I strongly agree with the sentiment on the call today that if the WCAG2ICT TF can’t figure out how to apply a WCAG 2.x success criterion to non-web software, that fact should be stated plainly.  We should not expect regulators/legislators/litigation to clarify this sort of detail, not on an SC-by-SC basis.

That said, with regard to 2.4.2 Page Titled, I am of the opinion that product names are sufficient for non-web software applications to meet 2.4.2.

Gregg asks about the product name reflecting purpose or function of the software.  IMHO, that paraphrasing goes beyond the literal requirement of the SC, but that's fine too.  The software publisher has satisfied themselves that the product name sufficiently reflects the purpose and function of the software.  Software product names describe topic or purpose. When this proves to not be case, the publisher rebrands (renames) their product.

From current Understanding 2.4.2 In Brief https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/page-titled.html

Goal:  Each web page has a meaningful title.
What to do:  Provide a descriptive page title using appropriate technology.
Why it's important:  Page titles help users identify and distinguish different pages.

The product name is meaningful.
The product name is the appropriate technology [for software].
Product names help users identify and distinguish different [applications].

If someone wants to argue that product names are not sufficiently descriptive, they still identify purpose.  I would also point out that, for a set of web pages, something as generic as “Chapter One” can be sufficient for meeting 2.4.2.  Context matters, and in the context of software, product name can be sufficient for meeting 2.4.2.

All that said, I find that my analysis is not entirely aligned with H25 and an ACT rule.  I should file GitHub issues!
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/html/H25
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/c4a8a4/

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2025 16:57:39 UTC