W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

RE: DPUB Set of Web Pages

From: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 16:33:34 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ccd473a3e8b94efb9c0baeca4c1f560f@E15MADAG-D05N03.sh11.lan>
Hi Alistair

I recall the problems with matching the set of Web pages into software more clearly (as that is something I am more familiar with) than the issues for documents, but I suspect that the issues may have been similar.

In software the general feeling was that accessibility issues relating to repeated blocks of content, locating things within a set of things, repeated navigation mechanisms, and the identification of things were problems across things like multiple windows, dialog boxes, etc. within a program (as well as between programs). We tried for weeks (months?) to agree a way to identify these entities so that we could map them to the Web page concept. A popular candidate was to call these things “interaction contexts” – but we couldn’t agree a robust enough version of this concept that was implementation independent.

The decision not to apply the WCAG2ICT set of Web page-based proposals to documents was primarily taken by those in my team who were very familiar with the range of different electronic document technologies (including one member who worked for a major document technology company). I didn’t have such familiarity with the technologies, so I went along with the expert judgement of those that had it (and the general approval of this approach in the widespread reviewing of EN 301 549). But I think that the issue was probably similar, no consistent way of defining the elements of an electronic document that could consistently be mapped to a Web page across all different document technologies.

Best regards


From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: 23 November 2016 15:43
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DPUB Set of Web Pages

Mike wrote:

> the consensus opinion was that applying 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 to documents using the “set of documents” definition did not capture the key accessibility needs

Hi Mike,

Do you remember what the issues were? It would help if we knew so that we can overcome the problems.

Perhaps it was because that the guidelines said that if you have navigation it should be consistent, but it didn’t require navigation? (e.g. 3.2.3).



Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 16:34:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC