WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: W3C structure, Standards bodies, and more (wasHow is PDF accessibility evaluated?)

for

From: Ron
Date: Feb 6, 2015 7:31PM

Standard proposing and standard setting are two very different things. By
the charter of the W3C this is very clear.

As usual the rest of your comments support my comments. And as usual you
have missed the point of my comments.

I am not going to get into another public debate with you on things. The
facts speak for themselves.

Ron Stewart
On Feb 6, 2015 8:23 PM, "John Foliot" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> >
> > The W3C is the developer of specifications for web based content. They
> > are not a standards board.
>
> I'm afraid I must correct Ron - the W3C is most certainly a standards
> creating
> organization:
>
> "W3C standards define an Open Web Platform for application
> development that
> has the unprecedented potential to enable developers to build rich
> interactive
> experiences, powered by vast data stores, that are available on any
> device."
> (source: http://www.w3.org/standards/)
>
> The W3C is also recognized as a standards creating body by other such
> organizations, and has formal agreements in place with other standards
> bodies
> such as the ISO.
> (see: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#dejure)
>
> To be overly pedantic, the W3C produces "Recommendations", which is simply
> their internal nomenclature for Standards, and a visit to the W3C web site
> will find multiple references to both terms:
> http://www.w3.org/standards/faq
>
>
>
> > There are actually several different standards organization's in this
> > space both domestically and internationally.
>
> Correct, for example IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force - who produce
> RFC's - which are their term for standards), ECMA (European Computer
> Manufacturers Association - the standards org for JavaScript), SMPTE
> (Society
> of Motion Picture and Television Engineers), AES (Audio Engineering
> Society),
> and others.
>
> Fortunately for us, these organizations are all "friendly" with each other,
> and in large organizations it is not surprising to see the same individuals
> show up at multiple standards bodies. As well, there are instances of
> "cross-body" work, for example the .png graphic format
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/) [if you reference that link, look under "2.
> Normative References" to see the inter-mingling of standards bodies and
> their
> standards involved in the PNG standard]
>
>
> Meanwhile, "Chagnon | PubCom" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >
> > > Susan wrote: "So I shouldn't be using the WCAG guidelines (and I
> > > thought the W3 was a standards board) at all?"
> > >
> > > WAI is the standards board for accessibility, under the larger W3C
> > > organization.
> > > WCAG are the guidelines developed by the WAI.
>
> Close enough. WAI is a "Program Office" at the W3C chartered to oversee the
> "accessibility space" (http://www.w3.org/WAI/IPO/Activity), and multiple
> Working Groups are chartered to do the standards development work,
> overseen by
> the WAI Coordination Group (http://www.w3.org/WAI/CG/).
>
> WCAG, and related documents are produced by the Web Content Guidelines
> Working
> Group, who's charter is here: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/new-charter.html
>
> Non-standards related work coordinated by WAI include Education and
> Outreach
> and the WAI Interest Group, which "maintains a public discussion forum on
> web
> accessibility, provides a forum for exchange of information on web
> accessibility..."
>
>
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the PDF UA is an ISO standard; ISO = the
> > > International Standards Organization.
>
> Just to be clear, WCAG 2 is an ISO standard as well: ISO/IEC 40500:2012
> (
> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=58625
> )
>
> From the ISO: "WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements
> that are not technology-specific. Guidance about satisfying the success
> criteria in specific technologies, as well as general information about
> interpreting the success criteria, is provided in separate documents."
>
> > > One more quirk in all this:
> > > -- W3C sets the standards for HTML, so they can write any standards
> > > and guidelines they want to cover websites.
> > > -- But Acrobat PDF is controlled by Adobe, MS Word et al by
> > Microsoft.
>
> Actually, the PDF standard has been an open standard since July 1, 2008,
> and
> published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO
> 32000-1:2008. While Adobe has contributed significantly to the standard,
> they
> don't "control" it.
>
> As well, Microsoft's Word application produces documents that are based
> upon
> the Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF), and authors can
> actually export/save Word Docs with the OTD filename extension. (ODF is
> also
> an ISO Standard)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
>
>
> > > So an outsider like the W3C can't tell these 2 corporations what to
> > do
> > > with their software and proprietary formats.
>
> Correct, but other standards bodies CAN [sic] - the standards exist, but
> it is
> enforcement, especially with regard to creating accessible content in those
> formats, that remains the biggest issue. Expecting the W3C to police that
> mess
> however is both unfair to the W3C, and unrealistic.
>
> Again, to be clear, standards bodies, be it the W3C, or any of the other
> standards bodies referenced here, are not in the job of policing or
> enforcing
> adherence to their standards - they publish them (and effectively all
> standards bodies come to their standards through some form of
> agreement/consensus process), and then they encourage users (authors, tool
> manufacturers, etc.) to conform to those standards, but no-one is
> obligated to
> do so.
>
> Enforcement to adherence is a legislative responsibility (so get off your
> back-end US Access Board), and internally within any organization adoption
> of,
> and adherence to, standards must be a policy decision for that
> organization,
> and monitoring for compliance (and consequences of non-compliance) remain
> the
> responsibility of that organization.
>
> Anyway, if you've made it this far, you've likely learned more than you
> thought you wanted to. If you have any questions, happy to try and assist -
> you can reply to this email thread or write me off-line.
>
> Cheers!
>
> JF
> Standards Weenie First-Class :-)
>
>
> > > >