Web and Software: Draft 2
TEITAC Web and Software Subcommittee Second Draft Submission, April 18, 2007
I. Material which can be described as “Changes to Existing Provisions”
- Modification – Material which modifies existing provisions.
- Rationale – Why is this change suggested?
- Estimate Economic Assessment. This field should contain the Subcommittee’s rough guess of expense to implement a revised provision. These changes should be measured from the current 508 standard only. For example, if the provision is not different, there is no net economic impact. Code as:
- “0” for negligible economic impact;
- “+” for minor economic impact;
- “++” for significant economic impact.
Recommendations on existing 1194.21 provisions
| Current provision | Keep current language? | Change in jurisdiction? | Modification | Rationale: Why is this change suggested? | Economic Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1194.21 (a) | no | no | TBD |
| TBD |
| 1194.21 (b) | no | no | TBD | "other products" is a testability issue. | TBD |
| 1194.21 (c) | no | no | Software shall provide a visual indication of which user interface object currently has the keyboard focus. If the object is a text entry field, a visual indication of the text insertion point shall be provided, and is sufficient. | Clarification that both an object cursor and text caret are not needed for text entry fields. Harmonization with ISO 9241-171. | 0 |
| 1194.21 (d) | no | no | Software that provides user interface objects shall either use the accessibility services provided by platform software or other services to cooperate with assistive technologies when such services allow the software to meet the accessibility provisions of this standard. Using such services, software shall:
| 21 (d) does not sufficiently enumerate the information that is required for interoperability with AT. This recommendation has been worded to harmonize with ISO 9241-171. | + |
| 1194.21 (e) | yes | no | Critical for assistive technologies, such as screen readers, that render content in a different modality. | 0 | |
| 1194.21 (f) | no | yes | Delete this provision. | This requiement is covered in the proposed modification to 21(d). | 0 |
| 1194.21 (g) | no | no | Applications shall utilize user selected contrast and color selections and other individual display attributes when the availability of those selections are developed and documented according to industry standards. | Subjective interpretation of "shall not override". | 0 |
| 1194.21 (h) | no | no | When an informational animation is displayed that will last for more than three seconds, software shall give the user a means to pause and restart the animation. When a decorative animation is displayed that will last for more than three seconds, software shall give the user a means to stop the animation. |
| + |
| 1194.21 (i) | yes | no | 0 | ||
| 1194.21 (j) | no | no | When a product permits a user to adjust color and contrast settings, at least one color selection capable of producing a minimum luminosity contrast ratio of n:1 shall be provided. Default combinations of foreground and background colours (hue and luminance) should produce a minimum luminosity contrast ratio of n:1 | Current provision is weak and unfailable. If an app doesn't permit the user to adjust color and contrast settings, it passes. If it does permit the user to adjust them, the requirement to provide "a variety of color selections capable of producing a range of contrast levels" is so subjective that they all pass. | + |
| 1194.21 (k) | no | no | TBD. | Upper bound should be 50Hz. Too restrictive. Small things, such as a blinking text cursor, that fail this provision do not cause problems. Harmonize with WCAG 2.0. | 0 |
| 1194.21 (l) | yes | no | 0 |
Recommendations on existing 1194.22 provisions
| Current provision | Keep current language? | Change in jurisdiction? | Modification | Rationale: Why is this change suggested? | Economic Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1194.22 (a) | no | no | Non-text Content: Except for the situations listed below, a text alternative that presents equivalent information shall be provided for all non-text content.
| Harmonize with WCAG 2.0 which provides more guidance on the text alternatives themselves | + |
| 1194.22 (b) | no | no | Harmonize wording with A/V subcommittee recommendations | Multimedia requirements should be the same for all delivery channels | 0 |
| 1194.22 (c) | Yes | no | Consider harmonizing with WCAG 2.0 when final | 0 | |
| 1194.22 (d) | no | no | Delete this provision | Style sheets are well-supported. What is needed instead is a provision on reading order. New provision recommended below. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (e) | no | no | Delete this provision. | Replace with a new provision on keyboard operability. Requiring equivalent text links is one way to make server side image maps accessible but there are other ways. New provision proposed below. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (f) | no | no | Delete this provision. | Since there is no area than cannot be defined with an available geographic shape, this provision essentially prohibits the ues of server side image maps. But they can be accessible as long as keyboard alternatives are provided. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (g) | no | no | Delete this provision. | Technology-specific. Replace with new provision from WCAG 2.0 on information and relationships. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (h) | no | no | Delete this provision. | Technology-specific. Replace with new provision from WCAG 2.0 on information and relationships. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (i) | no | no | Delete this provision. | Technology-specific. Add frames as an example to either the new provision on information and relationships or the new one on role, state, and name. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (j) | no | no | TBD. | Upper bound should be 50Hz. Too restrictive. Small things, such as a blinking text cursor, that fail this provision do not cause problems. Harmonize with WCAG 2.0. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (k) | no | no | Delete this provision. | A provision on alternatives is not needed because they can always be provided via equivalent facilitation. Note that this is still under debate in the subcommittee. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (l) | yes | no | 0 | ||
| 1194.22 (m) | no | no | Delete this provision. | For hamoniziation with WCAG 2.0, 1194.22 should cover requirements for all types of Web content, including applets, without having to reference back to 1194.21. Several new provisions are proposed below to ensure that none of the 1194.21 provisions are lost. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (n) | no | no | Delete this provision. | This provision is no longer needed. Forms are covered under 3 new proposed provisions below.
The subcommittee is also discussing adding additional forms requirements from WCAG 2.0. | 0 |
| 1194.22 (o) | no | no | A mechanism shall be available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages. | Harmonization with WCAG 2.0. | + |
II. New Provisions
Recommendations on New Provisions for 1194.22
| New provision | Rationale: What issue does this provision address? | Economic Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Keyboard operability provision TBD. | Replaces current provision on server side image maps. Also needed for JavaScript and other Web technology implementations. | TBD |
| The purpose of each link shall be capable of being determined from the link text and its programmatically determinable link context. | Combined with new keyboard operability provision, ensures that server side image maps are accessible. | TBD |
Information and relationships conveyed through presentation shall be programmatically determinable, and notification of changes to these is available to user agents, including assistive technologies. For example:
| Technology-neutral provision that replaces technology-specific provisions on table headers | TBD |
| A focus cursor shall be provided that visually indicates which user interface element currently has the keyboard input focus, as well as the focus location within that element when one exists. The focus cursor shall be programmatically determinable so that assistive technology can track focus and focus changes. | Focus cursors are provided by user agents for some technologies (HTML, PDF, etc.) but are needed for other technologies (JavaScript, Flash, etc.) | TBD |
For all user interface components, the name and role shall be programmatically determinable, states, properties, and values that can be set by the user shall be programmatically determinable and can be programmatically set, and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technologies. For example:
| Needed for non-HTML technologies and when re-purposing HTML elements such as which has no semantic meaning by default.
| TBD |
| Components that have the same functionality within a set of Web units shall be identified consistently. | WCAG 2.0 requirement needed to ensure that the 1194.22 is complete if 1194.22(m) is removed. | TBD |
For each time limit that is set by the content, at least one of the following is true:
| WCAG 2.0 requirement needed to ensure that the 1194.22 is complete if 1194.22(m) is removed. | TBD |
| Content shall be capable of being paused by the user unless the timing or movement is part of an activity where timing or movement is essential. | WCAG 2.0 requirement needed to ensure that the 1194.22 is complete if 1194.22(m) is removed. | TBD |
| Text, images of text, or diagrams, and their respective backgrounds, shall have a luminosity contrast ratio of at least n:1. | WCAG 2.0 requirement needed to ensure that the 1194.22 is complete if 1194.22(m) is removed. | TBD |
Recommendations on a new section to cover content formats
The Web and Software subcommittee was charged with looking at the issue of accessible content - e-mail, attachments in e-mail, etc. One issue is that the content format itself has to have certain features to enable the creation of accessible content. We therefore recommend adding a section that defines the necessary accessibility features. Agencies should store information only in compliant content formats and should therefore purchase products that support compliant content formats. Note that content creators still have to utilize the features in order for the content to actually be accessible.
| New provision | Rationale: What issue does this provision address? | Economic Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| When a content format supports non-text objects, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to associate non-text objects with textual descriptions displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports multimedia, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to include synchronized text of verbal content, and audio descriptions of critical nonverbal activity displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports 2 dimensional display of information, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify the logical linear reading order of the content displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports row and column headers in data tables, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify row and column headers for data tables displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to associate row and column headers with data cells, displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports interactive elements, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify name, operation, and state, of any interactive elements displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports links, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify link text displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports embedded comments, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify embedded comments and associate those comment locations within the document. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports scanned images of text, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to identify text of scanned images of text, displayable by a user-agent. Note, this means allowing for inclusion of the text of a scanned image of text. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
| When a content format supports dynamic presentations, graphs, or other extracted information, an encoding mechanism shall be provided to include data used for any dynamic presentations, graphs, or other extracted information displayable by a user-agent. | See rationale in introductory paragraph above. | TBD |
III. Other Material
A. Recommendations on organization of the provisions
B. Issues this subcommittee is not addressing, but which should be addressed.
- Usability of the standard could be improved if relevant definitions could be included in each part. Developers tend to look at only their section and don't refer to the definitions in subpart A.
- Developers need guidance on understanding that multiple parts of the standard may apply to what they are doing and help determining which parts of the standard do apply.
C. Recommendations regarding process: the work of the subcommittees, the whole Committee, liaison with the Access Board, etc.
D. Other Recommendations
- The Access Board should provide a document, for historical purposes, explaining the changes from the current standard to the new standard and the rationale for each.
