W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2022

RE: Mechanisms and conformance model

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:42:54 +0000
To: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL1PR03MB612096678A9FEE8E88A9297BF1059@BL1PR03MB6120.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
We have a similar aspect in SC 1.4.3 where you can use a style switcher to meet contrast requirements https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G174 we don't have that written in the SC itself but the conformance requirements and sufficient techniques show that it is needed.


From: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 1:00 PM
To: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Mechanisms and conformance model

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi All,

in the AGWG meeting on Mar 1 we agreed to check whether the conformance model states that the way to find an accessible alternative as well as the way to find / activate a mechanism for accessibility is itself accessible.

For the SC on visible controls, the question was posed whether it needs to be mentioned explicitly that the mechanism to make controls permanently visible is itself visible.
We feel similar holds for many SC,  and we feel this point should be handled in the conformance model. We hope it already is. Therefore it was agreed that I crosscheck.

I think it is covered, but it might not be bullet proof.
Explicitly mentioning mechanisms might be better.


In 5.2.4 it says:
"Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported."

In the definition of 'accessibility-supported' it says:
"2. The Web content technology must have accessibility-supported user agents that are available to users. This means that at least one of the following four statements is true:
1. The technology is supported natively in widely-distributed user agents that are also accessibility supported (such as HTML and CSS)"

For my way of thinking, the following interpretation is the only reasonable way to fulfill the statements: finding and activating a mechanism has to be accessible and conformant.
For example, if a mechanism is available to make all UI elements permanently visible, yet finding and activating the mechanism is not visible without interaction (like hover), the information and functionality is not available in a way that is accessibility supported, as the user might not be able to reach it.

Yet I have experienced discussions on such points before, where 'this is the only way that makes sense with the written rules' was not accepted as an argument. Therefore I feel it is not bullet proof.

What is your point of view?

Best regards,
Dr. Gundula Niemann
SAP Accessibility & Inclusive Design
Received on Friday, 4 March 2022 20:43:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:43 UTC