- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:07:58 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 28/04/2017 14:55, John Foliot wrote: > The Mobile Accessibility Task Force proposals cover both "web" content, > "web apps" and Native apps, I don't believe that has been the focus of the work, certainly not for the time I was involved in the TF (have taken more of a backseat in recent months). It may have been the aspiration at the time, but I wouldn't see that aspiration (from the extension doc below) as anything more than that, rather than a normative statement. And since mobile work is now not a standalone extension document, but rather part of WCAG, it needs to be scoped only to whatever WCAG is scoped to. > From the now dormant Mobile Accessibility WCAG Extension > <https://w3c.github.io/Mobile-A11y-Extension/>: > > The Mobile Accessibility Extension to WCAG 2.0 provides guidance to > improve accessibility for people with disabilities. While it > generally applies to traditional mobile devices, it also applies to > touch-enabled desktop devices, kiosks, tablets and other platforms > that use technology beyond the traditional mouse and keyboard. While > it is primarily oriented toward web and hybrid content, the > guidelines and success criteria may also apply to native mobile > applications. > Additionally, WCAG 2.0 today has 36 Techniques for Flash accessibility, > 35 techniques for Silverlight, and 23 Techniques for PDF - and none of > those file formats are "web pages delivered via http" - yes, those file > formats *CAN* be embedded or linked to pages using http, but they > themselves are not "web pages > <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef>", they are "content > <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contentdef>". > > Internally at the W3C, other Working Groups / Interest Groups are now > referencing WCAG as well, for content that again may or may not be > delivered via http - for example, look at the activity happening at the > Digital Publishing Interest Group > <https://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-accessibility/>: > > /Digital Publishing/ is a generic term for the broad ecosystem of > electronic journals, magazines, news, or book publishing (authors, > creators, publishers, news organizations, booksellers, accessibility > and internationalization specialists, etc.). Formats used by eBook > readers and tablets for electronic books, magazines, journals, and > educational resources are W3C Technology-based. (X)HTML, CSS, SVG, > SMIL, MathML, and various Web APIs are all part of modern digital > publishing workflows. > > > I also note with a wry smile that currently the WCAG 2.0 Rec is served > from the W3C server via http_*s*_, and a strict LEGAL reading and > interpretation of WCAG, using only the transport protocol as the > defining 'break point', could (technically) exclude WCAG itself from > meeting it's own standard. (FWIW, I sort of like the dpub's bright-line > as "W3C-Technology based", and I would suggest that this phrase may be > more suitable going forward.) Though fluffy, one of the distinctions we used to talk about at Opera (in the context of, say, HTML5 video compared to the use of Flash-based video players) is content that's "OF the web" versus content that's "ON the web". The latter being stuff handled via 3rd party plugins not natively present inside a browser. But of course, in original WCAG, since PDF/Silverlight/Flash were in scope, those plugins count as their own user agents, so the distinction won't work here all that much. > Chairs, at least 3 active members of this Working Group have now > suggested that we need more clarity here (Mark Hakkinen, Jon Avila, > myself), And myself - interestingly enough in a thread just before this one, where to an extent there was a feeling of "the current (mildly circular?) definition of user agent/web content isn't perfect, but understandable enough". Even the idea that content doesn't include things that get downloaded to the user's machine first (like a 3D Studio Max file delivered via the web, or similar) is not a hard enough distinguishing factor, since in effect even a webpage is first transferred to a user's local environment (cache etc) before being processed. Anyway, I don't have a clear and simple solution to the conundrum, but would agree that further discussion on this is quite fundamental and needed. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 15:08:33 UTC