> I would say that providing the native file does comply with WCAG even if
it is not the optimal user experience.
Then I could say, I don't need to make my website accessible if I provide a
nicely laid out text version. Not the best experience but was a
justification 10 years ago.
> public sector clients are legally mandated to make their websites as
accessible as possible, so they probably would not find the provision of
native files to be an acceptable solution.
In the US, public sector sites still have to follow Section 508. By
default, a web page would fall under 1194.22, web pages (simplified, and
1194.31, 1194.41 by default), since the page has video, 1194.26, video, is
now applicable, requiring captions and audio descriptions. Since there is
really no default video player in a browser, it must be coded/scripted.
Plug-ins and heavily scripted elements, like flash, are better tested under
1194.21, applications, which requires full keyboard access, and UI elements
to be labeled.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Steve Green
< <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:
> It depends whether your objective is WCAG compliance or some more utopian
> goal. I would say that providing the native file does comply with WCAG even
> if it is not the optimal user experience.
>
> As always, context is important. Most of our clients are design agencies
> who are contractually obliged to build websites that comply with WCAG, so
> that is what we test for. On the other hand, some of our public sector
> clients are legally mandated to make their websites as accessible as
> possible, so they probably would not find the provision of native files to
> be an acceptable solution.
>
> Steve Green
>
>
