My point was essentially: Let’s not worry about non-web contexts for the new SCs.
If the “mechanism” language is off-putting to people implementing web-content (our focus), then don’t use it.
If an SC might not be applicable outside of web-content, then note that for future work but it should not impact WCAG 2.1.
That means not worrying about non-web contexts for the text-adaptation SC, so no need for “if the technology supports it”.
Unless there is a “major web technology” where it couldn’t apply? So far we’ve had HTML/CSS/JS/SVG & PDF (where it can apply now). I don’t think it would be an issue for word-processing apps either, if they were included.
Cheers,
-Alastair
From: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
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<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
On Apr 24, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto: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