W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: The Techniques Revise

From: Alan Chuter <achuter1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:34:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAomaN1CCzq_SA8mM-V48R6F6Gu1642zBZJGJLQYnOY25NvMmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
How right you are, Wayne. The technique says "A PDF document consists
mostly of the content embedded with formatting information." Wouldn't
it be more accurate to say "A PDF document consists mostly of
formatting information with the content embedded"?

Maybe the success criterion could be renamed as "Separating
information from structure..." rather than "Separating information and
structure from presentation."



On 4 August 2013 22:02, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new techniques document is deeply flawed, and reduces access for
> people with disabilities. My primary trouble is what I consider to be
> an industry orientation of WCAG WG.
> Slowly but surely, the WCAG WG is taking back necessary accessibility
> needs.  Their lack of support of 200% enlargement with effective word
> wrapping is just one of many.  Let me be clear, I know that zoom will
> not enable word wrapping.  However, when browsers enable text-only
> enlargement of text, WCAG WG does not consider lack of support for
> word wrapping to be a failure.  What is that?  Word wrapping is
> necessary for effective reading. If the browser supports word wrapping
> the content should as well.
> The stance that accessibility need not be supported by techniques will
> seriously harm people with disabilities.  The problem is that vendors
> lie about accessibility when they sell software to large institutions.
>  The only protection for school districts, universities and other
> large entities is reliance on formally written guidelines with
> up-to-date implementation techniques.  I would advise any institution
> to never buy any product that does not meet current WCAG Techniques.
> If a vendor comes up with a new technique they should get it to WCAG
> WG right away.  I will work very hard at warning my own CSU System
> from taking this advice.
> Finally there is G140: Separating information and structure from
> presentation to enable different presentations.  WCAG WG has narrowed
> the concept of separating content beneath the needs of most people
> with print disabilities.  Actually WCAG WG narrowed this level of
> accessibility just enough to make it possible for PDF to pass WCAG.
> The "Example 2: Tagged PDF" on tagged PDF is an embarrassment for W3C.
> If WAI really goes forward with this version of Techniques it will
> cost the organization all its hopes for Standards Harmonization.
> Governments will have to make their own techniques to protect their
> people with disabilities.
> Sincerely,
> Wayne

Alan Chuter
Received on Monday, 5 August 2013 12:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:47 UTC