WCAG2ICT Project: Discover if we need new introductory sections and add, if needed

[maryjom]

For other documents that get updated, there are sections describing changes between versions, background/history, etc. Not sure if a Working Group Note typically has them, but these are worth considering:

• [x] Background on WCAG2ICT
• [x] Comparison with WCAG2ICT 2013 - add a placeholder section that will be written & reviewed prior to publication (tracked in #65)
• Change log - decision made on 10 Nov. to not incorporate a change log.

[maryjom]

Created a Discussion poll for the group to weigh in on this topic.

[maryjom]

Results of the poll are a bit mixed.

• Discussion of early results in the 3 Nov. meeting during the Announcements
• Discussion during 10 Nov. meeting made the following decisions: Add 2 sections: "Background" and a "Comparison to the 2013 WCAG2ICT Note" and do not add a detailed change log.
• @Lboniello volunteered to draft the background with Mary Jo's help. Meeting set for Monday 14 Nov.
• We also discussed whether things like definitions need to be listed in the Comparison or can/should be marked in the definition sections as "New" similar to the way WCAG does it. This is being left to the Editors' discretion. For now, a placeholder section will be created and right before publication as a first draft we can start populating the contents.

[Lboniello]

A working group note for W3C on the topic of applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web information and communication technologies (WCAG2ICT) was approved in September of 2013. The note, Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT) describes how the WCAG 2.0 can be applied to ICT, specifically to non-web documents and software. The note is organized by sections to mirror those found in WCAG 2.0: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. It was intended that the note would help clarify when and how WCAG 2.0 success criteria should be applied: without modification or with modification (with edits and/or notes). Glossary terms were also reviewed for applicability as written. AAA was not addressed in the final note.

WCAG2ICT has been relied upon in regulations and standards such as: Section 508 - Application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT (US) and EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (Europe) and other standards that reference and/or incorporate EN 301 549 (e.g. India, Kenya, Australia, etc.). Section 508 looks to WCAG2ICT for detailed direction in providing specific guidance and exceptions to particular criteria from being applied to non web technology.

[bruce-usab]

In addition to USAB link (from the preamble to the final rule), the regulatory adoption of WCAG Conformance for non-web software and WCAG Accessibility Standard applied to non-web documents.

[ThorstenKatzmann]

editorial only, better "Level AAA Success Criteria" instead of only "AAA" so that it reads "Level AAA Success Criteria was not addressed in the final note."

[maryjom]

One minor edit to Thorsten's edit: "Level AAA Success Criteria were not addressed in the final note."

[maryjom]

@Lboniello Can you incorporate comments from Thorsten and Bruce into the draft for our discussion this Thursday?

[Lboniello]

@maryjom absolutely. Will comment with the updated draft in a clean comment window.

[Lboniello]

@bruce-usab - where did you want this?

In addition to USAB link (from the preamble to the final rule), the regulatory adoption of WCAG Conformance for non-web software and WCAG Accessibility Standard applied to non-web documents.

[Lboniello]

Updated below without @bruce-usab addition as it was unclear to me how to incorporate that text/link/comment.

A working group note for W3C on the topic of applying WCAG 2.0 to non-web information and communication technologies (WCAG2ICT) was approved in September of 2013. The note, Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies (WCAG2ICT) describes how the WCAG 2.0 can be applied to ICT, specifically to non-web documents and software. The note is organized by sections to mirror those found in WCAG 2.0: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. It was intended that the note would help clarify when and how WCAG 2.0 success criteria should be applied: without modification or with modification (with edits and/or notes). Glossary terms were also reviewed for applicability as written. Level AAA Success Criteria were not addressed in the final note.

WCAG2ICT has been relied upon in regulations and standards such as: Section 508 - Application of WCAG 2.0 to non-web ICT (US) and EN 301 549 V3.2.1 (Europe) and other standards that reference and/or incorporate EN 301 549 (e.g. India, Kenya, Australia, etc.). Section 508 looks to WCAG2ICT for detailed direction in providing specific guidance and exceptions to particular criteria from being applied to non web technology.

[maryjom]

@Lboniello A clarification was asked for regarding Level AAA statement in the 1 Dec. meeting by Gregg Vanderheiden to be clear about it being the original note. Now that I have thought about it more, maybe say "Level AAA Success Criteria were not addressed in the 2013 WCAG2ICT Note."

I think once Bruce's comments are addressed then this can be incorporated into the GitHub document. Do you feel comfortable doing the GitHub pull request or wish to leave that to the editors to do?

[bruce-usab]

My apologies for missing the call toady, and for my comment above being so cryptic!

@Lboniello presently includes a link to the 508 preamble discussing the Application of WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web ICT. We all agree that is very helpful!

In addition to referencing that preamble prose, my suggestion is to also cite to the 508 regulation, and specifically to the provisions that incorporate by reference (IBR) the WCAG Accessibility Standard as to be applied to non-web documents and WCAG Conformance for non-web software.

As we have discussed, EN 301 549 – from a mechanic editorial perspective – implemented WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 essentially via copy/paste. The two different approaches have strengths and weakness.

I think it may be of some utility to note that the USAB IBR was not as simple as one might have preferred. In particular, Conformance Requirement 3 does not work for software with only word substitution. A too-quick read gives the impression we skipped it. It is there, as E207.3

[bruce-usab]

@Lboniello (et al.) for linking to the wcag2ict discussion in the 508 preamble, please use: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/18/2017-00395/information-and-communication-technology-ict-standards-and-guidelines#h-36

(Linking to access-board.gov for 508 provisions is the best option. But it is not working well to have the preamble on the same page (on the USAB site) as the regulation, since printing results in about 100 more pages than people expect. It is on my list of things to move the preamble its own page.)

[bruce-usab]

On call today (1/19) I volunteered to try my hand on a PR to resolve this thread.

[bruce-usab]

See proposed changes: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/81/files

[pday1]

Minor editorial point: Guidance section, paragraph 1, line 2. Broken markdown link is still present "[[WCAG22]]" after the link Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2

[maryjom]

@pday1 The broken link gets resolved when incorporated into the Editor's draft. There's special respec markup and post-processing that goes on when the full document is built to make that part work. If you look at the references section of the WCAG2ICT editor's draft, you can see the references are resolved in there.

[maryjom]

AG WG has a survey open until 9 March with AG WG survey results discussion at a TBD future date (after CSUN conference).

[maryjom]

All content complete for this section.