Re: CfC: Pull Request 137

Part of what was discussed was trying to ensure that our techniques for WCAG are focused on HTML and not so much on XHTML as they once were.  Nothing about this proposed change means that XHTML is any more or less able to meeting WCAG success criteria, it is simply proposed to provide a simpler and clearer message.

We won’t be adding SVG into this technique as it is an HTML technique, but there is always a possibility that it could be made into a general technique that focuses on markup languages, or a very similar technique could be added for SVG.

This started with a public comment which pointed out that in H88 we state "At the time this technique was published, the appropriate versions of these technologies is HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. HTML 4.01 is the latest mature version of HTML”.  Obviously, that statement is still true as a result of the “at the time this technique was published” phrase.  The group discussed updating the technique to say HTML5 and make that that it made sense, but there was enough discussion about focusing on HTML (HTML5) that the group was interested in doing this sort of clean up.

The way I see it, if we don’t agree to the proposed change, we probably won’t do anything with the technique now as we have too many competing priorities to get into further debate on this topic and I expect that we would instead make a note to remember to revisit this when we do techniques for WCAG.Next. I would encourage people to think about whether the current state or the proposed state is preferred and one way or another let’s close this item out.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 13:39
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CfC: Pull Request 137



From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 1:18 PM

Question: is this then worth re-opening? ePub is moving towards HTML5, but we don't really say anything about SVG (which is a growing technology) and perhaps we should, given that:
a) WCAG is (should be) technology agnostic, and,
b) this applies to both 4.1.1 Parsing "In content implemented using markup languages...", as well as 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value with the Note: "This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components." (which one can do with SVG, for example)
c) with a bit of a stretch we could also say that this applies to ARIA, where if you DON'T use ARIA "according to their (it's) respective specification(s)" you will again have content that may not be accessible due to a "robustness" failure.

Thoughts?

This technique at the very least applies to HTML and XHTML. Removing the reference to XHTML is a step in the wrong direction, so it’s -1 from me to the CFC.

The text should also be updated. XHTML 5 is the current version of XHTML:
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml


I also support John’s comment about SVG. I think this working group should collaborate with the SVG Accessibility Task Force to define WCAG techniques for SVG (both stand-alone SVG graphics and SVG embedded in an HTML or XHTML context). This, however, is a larger issue than the present CFC.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________