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

RE: WCAG 2.0 and EN 301 549

From: Michèlle <michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:59:52 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA7E86CC9639374598E27B772A9EE3BFD677B4@SSO608259.frd.shsdir.nl>
Hi Andrew, thanks for your contribution!  I’d be interested to know the response of the Standards Australia committee on this matter.

Michèlle


Van: Andrew Arch [mailto:andrew.arch@digital.gov.au]
Verzonden: woensdag 21 september 2016 1:22
Aan: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: WCAG 2.0 and EN 301 549

Thanks all for this discussion. The question of what happens when WCAG changes is timely as Australia is in the process of adopting EN 301-549 [1, 2] - I'll certainly raise this with some people on the Standards Australia committee.

Andrew

[1] http://bit.ly/2cOyTpE (PDF from Standards Australia)
[2] http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2016/09/09/Accessibility-ICT-Procurement-Standard/




-------------------

Andrew Arch

Accessibility & Inclusivity Lead

Digital Transformation Office<http://www.dto.gov.au/>

e. andrew.arch@digital.gov.au<mailto:andrew.arch@digital.gov.au>
p. 0428 134 529 t. @DTO<https://twitter.com/AusDTO>  |  @amja<https://twitter.com/amja>

On 21 September 2016 at 03:05, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org<mailto:shadi@w3.org>> wrote:
Hi,

On 20-Sep-16 18:27, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
Hi,

On 20/09/2016 16:29, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
While ETSI carried out the development of EN 301 549, it actually is a
CEN standard - so CEN would have the last word about this.

The 2014 [1] and the April 2015 versions [2] available from ETSI have
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI on the cover page, since the EC mandate (Mandate
376) went to all three of these standardisation bodies.
The copyright notification mentions CEN, CENELEC and ETSI as copyright
holders, so the claim that it is exclusively a CEN standard is
incorrect.  (The European Commission wanted the standard to be published
by ETSI so it would be available free of charge.)

Agree, this is my understanding as well.

However, I don't know what the process would be when WCAG 2.0 gets updated:

* Would the Join Working Group (CEN/CLC/ETSI/JWG eAcc) update EN 301
549? (Without a new mandate?)
* Would W3C submit the new version to ISO? This would indirectly allow
acceptance as a CEN standard, since CEN and ISO have the "Vienna
Agreement", which allows, among other things, the "adoption of existing
international standards as European standards" [3]. (W3C was recognised
as a "PAS Submitter" by ISO in 2010 [4]; I am not aware of anything
similar between W3C and CEN.)

As far as I know, EN 301 549 references WCAG 2.0 directly rather than ISO/IEC 40500. Here is the relevant text from Clause 9:

[[
The web content requirements in clause 9.2 set out all of the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria from the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) [4]

...

NOTE 2: WCAG 2.0 is identical to ISO/IEC 40500 (2012): "Information technology - W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0" [4].

...

[4] W3C Recommendation (11 December 2008)/ISO/IEC 40500:2012: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0". NOTE: Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

]]

The EN also "contains" an electronic copy of WCAG 2.0 in Annex A.

I understand there are explorations to update the EN. Hopefully future versions will continue to be aligned with W3C resources.

Information about WCAG WG and how to join is available here:
 - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/


Best,
  Shadi

CEN (https://www.cen.eu/Pages/default.aspx) is the “European Committee
for Standardization”. The abbreviation CEN goes back to the French
equivalent “Comité européen de normalisation”.

The CEN website link to EN 301 549 “Accessibility requirements
suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in
Europe" is:
https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:60328,855949&cs=18CA5914157C8AAA297634B3D0FEE774B


[1]
<http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.01.01_60/en_301549v010101p.pdf>
[2]
<http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.01.02_60/en_301549v010102p.pdf>
[3] <http://boss.cen.eu/ref/Vienna_Agreement.pdf>
[4] <https://www.w3.org/2010/04/pasfaq>

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe

On 20 Sep 2016, at 15:56, Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius
<michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>
<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>>> wrote:

Thanks Chaals, that sounds logical. I could not find anything on
ETSI’s website on this subject unfortunately so I was hoping someone
on this list might have some inside information ;-). Agreed that two
different versions would be a bad idea!


*Van:* chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>>
[mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>]
*Verzonden:* dinsdag 20 september 2016 15:50
*Aan:* Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
*Onderwerp:* Re: WCAG 2.0 and EN 301 549

Hi Michelle,

20.09.2016, 15:29, "Vlerken-Thonen, M. van (Michèlle) - Logius"
<michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>
<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl<mailto:michelle.van.vlerkenthonen@logius.nl>>>:

     WCAG 2.0's Level A and AA success criteria are incorporated as
     references in clause 9.2 of the European standard EN 301 549
     published by ETSI.

     I was wondering what will happen if a new version of WCAG is
     published. Will EN 301 549 change as well?

Presumably that is up to ETSI...

     If an organization wants to participate in the work on
     accessibility guidelines (for example give input to improve the
     success criteria or techniques) would a membership of W3C or ETSI
     be more appropriate?

Participation in W3C, since that's where the document actually gets
written.

I think a separate ETSI version that was different would be a *bad* idea.

cheers

Chaals



     Thanks for any insights you might have on this.



     Michèlle



--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru> <mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>> - - - Find more
at http://yandex.com <http://yandex.com/>





Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:02:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 September 2016 10:02:09 UTC