W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: Potential clarification of Web Content/User Agent

From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:59:24 -0400
Message-Id: <D8769680-BBC5-4B5D-B55B-541D38BED66A@umd.edu>
Cc: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
> The main question we get is: Does it (or parts of it) also aüply to native apps? Or will it, with 2.1, or 'Silver'? At which point I try to embark on a convoluted (and possibly slightly misinformed) explanation of the genesis of WCAG2ICT and its being mirrored now in chapter 11 of EN 301 549 so stating that in theory WCAG will or should  basically apply also to native apps only except some web page specific things (at which point you then wonder why things like SC 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation which is missing in Chapter 11 should not also apply to native apps, etc.) PLUS there may be things now tackled in 2.1 (if they eventually get buy-in) that should fill some gaps related to gestures tc.
> So I welcome clarification of the scope of WCAG if only to put at rest this uneasy question: does it apply to native apps?

AH I  see the problem

WCAG is  WEB CONTENT guidelines. 

however - they were written so well as technology agnostic guidelines that when the Access board put together an industry – consumer advisory board to rewrite the 508/255 guidelines, what they came up with for document and software guidelines based off of the WCAG 2.0 with minor editorial changes.   Or rather, the documents and software guidelines included essentially all of WCAG plus additional guidelines because WCAG doesn’t address platform accessibility issues.

When the access board was looking at the draft guidelines turned in by the advisory committee it noted that it required WCAG 2.0 for web content and then essentially duplicated all of the WCAG 2.0 provisions over again for documents and then again for software. The access Board therefore just simply said to use WCAG 2.0 for all three, and then added additional guidelines for parts that  WCAG did not cover.

Some people from industry pushed back saying that WCAG 2.0 was for web content and could not be easily applied to documents and software. The WCAG2ICT  task force was therefore formed including wide representation from ICT industry as well as from Europe (the cochair was Mike Pluke from Europe).   The results of that project can be read in the WCAG2ICT report.

WCAG 2.0 Itself however continues to apply to web content and its conformance is restricted to web content. TheWCAG2ICT report talks about how the provisions of the WCAG 2.0 could be applied to documents and software.   some applied directly some require word substitution etc. it also noted areas of documents and software where WCAG 2.0 did not provide coverage and the 508 255 would have to cover them otherwise.

WCAG2ICTDoes not change WCAG 2.0 however. Nor does it extend the guidelines themselves or their conformance model to anything else. It is simply a report of the task force in response to the access board’s  proposition to use the WCAG provisions in 508 255 to apply beyond web content.

So in answer to the question:

> So I welcome clarification of the scope of WCAG if only to put at rest this uneasy question: does it apply to native apps?

the scope of WCAG does not apply to native apps.   the provisions in WCA G however are quite powerful and generic and have been used by others to apply to native apps. But what they have been used for does not affect the scope of the actual WCAG itself.

does that help?

Received on Saturday, 22 April 2017 20:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC