W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

RE: WCAG compliance question

From: Malamud, Mark (NIH/NHLBI) [E] <malamudm@nhlbi.nih.gov>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:31:53 +0000
To: 'Mike Elledge' <melledge@yahoo.com>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
CC: "Durham, Heather" <heather.durham@pearson.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5CC7B04A11EDEB4CB366C3BC0AE9A909312E6DE3@msgb10.nih.gov>
Thank you all for this interesting thread!  I confess, I must be missing something, since my first reaction was to wonder if the specific tech even matters.  I was inclined to ask a few high-level questions:

Is the content in question perceivable?  If not, does not perceiving it eliminate any information required and otherwise obtained?

Is it required to trigger any change?

Is the information understandable and complete without it?

And, if it is somehow required, can remediation be as simple as adding instructions for screen reader users?

My understanding is the WCAG 2.0 and the intent of the Access Board is to focus on whether the content is delivered rather than how it is delivered.

Thanks again,
Mark

Mark Malamud
Accessibility Specialist
Information Technology and Applications Center (ITAC)
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, DHHS
  On Detail
  NIH Office of the Chief Information Officer
  6555 Rock Spring Drive, Suite 300, Room 3NE-34
  Bethesda, MD. 20817, Mail Stop: 4801
  (301) 496-5032


From: Mike Elledge [mailto:melledge@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 1:19 AM
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Durham, Heather <heather.durham@pearson.com>; WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WCAG compliance question

I'm absolutely in agreement, and you've given a great description of the intent of WCAG and its criteria.

Thanks, Phil!

On Feb 26, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
I do not think I have misunderstood, I think I am disagreeing with your explanation.  Perhaps I'm being misunderstood.  If functionality is lost by disabling CSS, that is in and of itself *not* a WCAG conformance failure.  When CSS is disabled and the functionality that was coded into the CSS layer fails, that is merely showing that the web app relies on CSS to function.  In fact, there are CSS techniques that require CSS to be turned on so that the web app can successfully meet a success criteria.  If disabling CSS breaks the ability to meet a success criteria, that is not an accessibility either, its is merely showing that the web app relies on CSS to meet WCAG.

Any functionality needed by any user that is provided in CSS, and then lost by disabling CSS is NOT a WCAG conformance issue nor an accessibility issue, it is merely showing the dependence on CSS.

Relying on CSS, JavaScript, Text, HTML or any technology is not an accessibility issue, but as explained in WCAG, merely a dependency.  Turning off a dependency is not an WCAG conformance issue.

Now, having said all that, some may say that relying on a technology may disproportionately affect some users, and some of those user may have disabilities.   For example, users using older browsers and assistive technology that do not support WAI-ARIA mark-up, or JavaScript, or even really old browsers that don't support CSS will have issues.  But even that same disabled user, using supporting technology, will be able to successfully use the web app that relies on the technology - so its not a disability issue per se, but a lack of the availability of the supporting technology.  That country or language or enterprise that has the lack of supporting technology can and should set policies that restrict some technologies, but that is only a failure to meet the policy for that country or language or enterprise, not generally accepted WCAG conformance failure.  Hence WCAG A and AA are not policies in and of themselves, but merely success criteria that can be referenced and enforced by policy.  So what I'm saying is that Pearson, or IBM, or Madagascar can set its own policies and require company or country web apps to be able to function and conform to WCAG without relying on CSS.  And those same companies and countries can also choose to upgrade their policies, and the WCAG Success Criteria still remain reference-able and useful.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,





From:        "Durham, Heather" <heather.durham@pearson.com<mailto:heather.durham@pearson.com>>
To:        Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:        WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        02/26/2016 05:52 PM
Subject:        Re: WCAG compliance question
________________________________



I believe you may have misunderstood. Disabling CSS is not a requirement, but functionality that a user needs in order to use a web page shouldn't be coded into the CSS layer, which would then be lost if CSS is disabled.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
well, the only reference to CSS in 1.3.1<https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20120103/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>that I found is an advisory technique to encourage actually using CSS correctly: [red underline highlighting added]

Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1
Although not required for conformance, the following additional techniques should be considered in order to make contentmore accessible. Not all techniques can be used or would be effective in all situations.

  *   C22: Using CSS to control visual presentation of text<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C22>(CSS)
  *   Using CSS rather than tables for page layout (future link)

nothing abut disabling CSS as a requirement that I could find.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,





From:        "Durham, Heather" <heather.durham@pearson.com<mailto:heather.durham@pearson.com>>
To:        Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:        WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        02/26/2016 04:25 PM
Subject:        Re: WCAG compliance question
________________________________



It is what I understood from this:
WCAG 2.0 – Level A - 1.3.1 Info and Relationships:
Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text. (Level A)

https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20120103/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html


​​


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> Here's my take: With CSS disabled, users must be able to view, reach, activate and interact . . .

Are you suggesting a new success criteria for WCAG 2.x?

or is that your individual interpretation?

Otherwise, where in WCAG 2.0 does it require the web app to work with CSS disabled?

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,



--

Heather Durham
Accessibility SQA, HEd

Pearson
2154 E. Commons Ave.
Suite 4000
Centennial, CO  80122
USA

Learn more at pearson.com<http://pearson.com/>



--

Heather Durham
Accessibility SQA, HEd

Pearson
2154 E. Commons Ave.
Suite 4000
Centennial, CO  80122
USA

Learn more at pearson.com<http://pearson.com/>


Received on Monday, 29 February 2016 14:32:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 February 2016 14:32:30 UTC