From 4cd2e60be1ea731178ce4e8f5cffd05ae7cf620b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wilco Fiers Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 11:24:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Update accessibility support section --- guidelines/index.html | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/guidelines/index.html b/guidelines/index.html index 162615ce..ad730457 100644 --- a/guidelines/index.html +++ b/guidelines/index.html @@ -516,10 +516,48 @@

Steps to Conform

Conforming alternative version

For this first draft, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has focused on the basic conformance model. For a next draft, we will explore how conforming alternative versions fit into the new conformance model.

+

Only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies

-

For this first draft, the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has focused on the basic conformance model. For a next draft, we will explore how accessibility-supported fits into the new conformance model.

+
+

The subgroup has been discussing how we should handle the “accessibility-supported” concept in WCAG 3. The subgroup identified the following two directions and there are five options for the first direction at this time.

+
    +
  1. + Keep “accessibility-supported” (AS) concept +
      +
    1. as-is (i.e., without test files and testing results).
      2. +
    2. Develop a database (including test files and testing results).
      3. +
    3. Develop test files at least (without testing results).
      4. +
    4. Keep limited to documented Methods (without test files and testing results).
      5. +
    5. Promote AS issues in each Guideline in WCAG 3 as well as supporting documents (without test files and testing results).
      6. +
    +
    2. +
  2. Remove AS.
    3. +
+

For the next step, the subgroup must first decide if WCAG 3 must keep the “accessibility-supported” concept (#1) or not (#2). If WCAG 3 will keep AS (#1), there are five options (from a. to e. above) to improve and clarify the “accessibility-supported” concept in WCAG 3.

+

Here are questions the subgroup will need to address based on our findings so far:

+
    +
  • + Should we keep the “accessibility-supported” concept or not? +
      +
    • Pros and Cons on “Keep” vs “Remove” are available in draft format.
      • +
    +
    • +
  • + If yes, what form should AS take? (Example: a. ～ e. above) +
      +
    • Should we modify the definition of the term “accessibility-supported” if needed?
      • +
    +
    • +
+

The subgroup has identified the following outstanding issues:

+
    +
  • It has been a big challenge to secure robust human resources and funding to create test files and test them with a wider range of ATs and UA. What level of effort is needed to sustain test files and test results, and in multiple languages. What resources are available for this effort?
    • +
  • There is an older prototype “Web Accessibility database” which was not approved (and not maintained) due to the scalability issues. Does this prototype serve as a proof of concept? What is missing from this prototype?
    • +
+
+

Defining conformance scope

When evaluating the accessibility of content, WCAG 3.0 requires the outcomes apply to a specific scope. While the scope can be an all content within a digital product, it is usually one or more sub-sets of the whole. Reasons for this include: