Open cookiecrook opened 1 year ago
mraccess77
commented
1 year ago For context, I believe a possible situation for which this was attempting to allow for was when a site allows for user generated content and the site could conform even when users post inaccessible content as long as the site provided the person generating the content with the means to upload/create/support conforming content. So it's a situation where the authored content is part of the scope of the site.
bruce-usab
commented
1 year ago Since "stand-alone user agents" is clear enough, I agree that embedded must be a reference to text editing widgets not unlike the commenting system used for GitHub issues!
I don't think the context is necessarily scoped to only user-generated content from the public. A organization's CMS would be covered by WCAG3, and would be in-scope for conformance.
cookiecrook
commented
1 year ago I'm hopeful my point is clear that "embedded" is a broad term often used in context well outside the scope of the Web... For example, see web search results for embedded software and note that none of them are referring to web software.
I think "web-based user interface display technologies" covers the use cases you're trying to maintain, even if those interfaces are included from difference script or library sources.
bruce-usab
commented
1 year ago I agree with trying to avoid "embedded". I am not so keen on substituting six words for three. I think "display" might be too limiting. Can we just use "components"? Also, adding a period, and addressing my nit pick about "guidelines" versus Capital-G-Guidelines or lowercase-g-guidance.
WCAG3 will not include normative guidance for stand-alone user agents or authoring tools. WCAG3 may include Guidelines for web-based components and authoring tools, such as an online video player built with JavaScript and HTML, or an online blogging service.
Are we putting a space before the 3 or no? How about W3CAG instead of WCAG 3? The 3 in W3CAG is silent, so it can still be pronounced the same, "way kag"!
cookiecrook
commented
1 year ago web-based components and authoring tools
That phrasing works for me. Thanks.
awkawk
commented
1 year ago I'm not so sure. The idea of having authoring rules is more complex than many may think. In the Section 508 refresh we struggled with authoring tool language because in some cases an authoring tool is a single tool and in many cases it is a sequence of tools (e.g., a tool to create the captioning, a different tool that creates video, a different tool that adds both to a page).
So if a standalone tool is used as part of that process then that tool won't need to meet the requirements specified in WCAG 3. Are we ok with specifying authoring requirements that apply to web-based tools but not those built as OS-native tools? Chances are those requirements will wind up applying to the standalone tools anyway as rule-making efforts in the EU/US/Canada/etc may apply the web-based rules to other software, so it would be better if we could build the rules with the full scope in mind.
Proposed Charter includes:
"embedded" is possibly misused here, or ambiguous at least. Suggest replacing "embedded user agents and authoring tools" with "web-based user interface display technologies" or something else similarly specific.