WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Ron Stewart
Date: Feb 6, 2015 8:37PM

Not sure why I am bothering at this point. There are those of us who actually try to solve problems such as the discussion that originally started this thread. Instead of focusing their energies on esoteric conversations that at the end of the day don't deliver a pragmatic answer to the question being posed. What comes to mind at this point is the longdesc battle, or the abandonment of XHTML which were both very detrimental to the end user who was trying to get what they needed at the end of the day.



If the original poster would like to contact me directly. I would be more than happy to help you work through your dilemma since it is something I deal with on a regular basis in my work with developers and delivers in the higher education space. On a regular basis I deal with the issues of web, vs. digital, curriculum vs. legal requirements in this space and it is a very murky space. I find that instead of worrying about nuance and the end of the day it is about getting the person the material they need in a way that they can use it.



Ron Stewart

<EMAIL REMOVED>



From: Ron [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:31 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] W3C structure, Standards bodies, and more (was RE: How is PDF accessibility evaluated?)



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?csnumberX625)

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 :-)