Good post
I think I agree with your point about keeping focus on web content. If I understand it.
but I think we should stick to it even a bit more than you do.
see below
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu
> On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > I agree that scoping it is not desirable, since it gives a pass to anyone that uses a technology that doesn’t support it.
>
> Or we use the “mechanism is available” language so that technologies without the user-agent ability to override styles can pass if the author includes the mechanism.
Yes. But we must use this only when we feel that the Mechanism is reasonable
>
> However, I think the basic principle of whether these are scoped to “web content” or aiming for a wider reach is still there.
The name of the Guidelines is “WEB CONTENT Accessibility Guidelines.” If they can be more broadly used that is fine — but we do not have the mandate or nor charge to write guidelines for other things. I think we should stick to Web Content.
>
> If the mechanism language is included that is off-putting to anyone working with web content.
I think I agree with where you are going — but this is and IF-THEN sentence but there is no THEN so I don’t know exactly where you were going with it.
>
> I would prefer to push the accessibility of web content further (in the “web content” guidelines), and mark some SC is less or not-applicable to non-web contexts, which is presumably what the Web2ICT report did?
>
I agree we should focus on Web Content.
I don’t think we should be commenting on application outside of Web Content. Yes that is what the WCAG2ICT report did — but that was led by a special task force that included people from outside of the web world as well. Revising WCAG2ICT should involve some external input — and I suggest we stick to web content and not open up non-web content. That is more work hours than you can imagine and we are having trouble advancing what we have in Web content.
So I agree — stick to web content
I don’t think we should be making judgements outside of web content
G
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair