WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The ITIC updated VPATs

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Dec 21, 2018 10:49AM

Very true. Good point Jonathan .

Regards,
Sailesh


On 12/21/18, Jonathan Avila < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hi Sailesh, one item that customers often request us to remove is the date
> of the VPAT format revised that appears at the top of the conformance report
> document. This date could be seen as confusing as it's not the report date
> but the template release date. However, that line can't be changed/removed
> per the instructions. It would be great to get clarification if the format
> version could be kept but the revision date could be removed to prevent
> confusion of those reading the conformance report.
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
> Sailesh Panchang
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:11 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc: Jeff Kline < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The ITIC updated VPATs
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> Here are my observations and suggestions that I have submitted to ITIC with
> the hope they will be considered for 2019 versions. VPAT 2.3 incorporating
> WCAG 2.1 was released today.
>
> 1. VPAT is a registered mark and there are some essentials one is supposed
> to adhere to. Yet it permits a lot of flexibility: use single table or have
> separate tables for different content types, drop rows for subsections (in
> S508) / use HTM or PDF or presumably XLS formats, break up the report into
> multiple parts for a complex product and so forth.
> And yet it says one should not materially deviate from the format.
> This is confusing … with so much scope for deviating!
>
> 2. Every cell of the WCAG tables (for the different VPAT types S508 / WCAG
> etc). has "labels" for different content types (Web / software / authoring
> tools / docs). Visually it may not pose a problem but screen reader users
> will have a hard time filling this out or even reading the content
> meaningfully.
> The alternative presentation that is permitted - using separate tables for
> different content types will work for all users and be an easy read. In
> fact creating one VPAT for different content types is problematic because
> they could be on different platforms and support and remarks may differ.
> I suggest that the instructions should indicate that users should insert
> separate tables for the different content types that apply or create a
> separate VPAT for each content type. I think ITIC is in a great position
> to influence the creation of a separate VPAT for each content type. These
> can be separate docs or combined into one depending on client's needs /
> usage.
>
> 3. In stand alone WCAG2 format too every table cell has labels for the
> different content types. WCAG does not define these content types although
> one can apply WCAG to them. I was intrigued by this presentation.
>
> 4. The instructions state that the VPAT maybe used for revised /
> corrected or final S08 standards of 2017, and 2018... why not just say
> the final S508 one only?
>
> 5. As one is permitted to do away with entire sections / tables that do
> not apply, it may help to have a single version with the WCAG 2 tables and
> then define additional sections for S508, EN 301-549. The instructions for
> authors may state these sections may be retained only for reports based on
> those standards.
>
> 6. I also see the instructions for the different VPAT types (S508 / WCAG /
> EU / all in one) have very little that is different.
> Therefore, if a single VPAT is drawn up as per #5 above, the instructions
> should also be organized along those lines: applicable to WCAG only/
> applicable if S508 is used / applicable if EN 301-549 is used.
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
>
> --
> Sailesh Panchang
> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems Inc
> Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
> Mobile: 571-344-1765
>
>
>
>
> On 12/20/18, Jeff Kline via WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>> Is it just me, or does anyone else think that there are too many,
>> "audience specific" versions of the updated VPAT form.
>>
>> I am trying to understand why we need separate templates for WCAG,
>> EN, 508, and International. I still see many manufacturers (mfrs)
>> struggling with just the basics of completing a VPAT 1.0 (Yes....sad
>> but true) so sending them out to the ITI VPAT page to choose from
>> multiple versions of the form is problematic and will likely
>> introduce additional complexity and confusion.
>>
>> Also, it seems to me that, many IT mfrs operate internationally and
>> would need the EN section completed anyway, so why make it a separate
>> template?
>> This potentially forces mfrs to maintain multiple versions of ACRs for
>> a single product when one would suffice. (With added pain and cost I
>> might
>> add) If I put my mfr business hat back on, I know that as a mfr, I
>> would not be very happy about this.
>>
>> On the procurement site, there is also the possibility that the
>> procuring entity could receive different versions of the form from
>> different mfrs, which could make it more difficult to compare the
>> offerings.
>>
>> Why there isn't a single version that incorporates the criteria from
>> all of the standards now covered. Wait! There is one! It's the
>> International Version!!
>>
>> For US procurement organizations, public or private, they can point
>> directly to the International (full) Version on the ITI website, and
>> specify in the solicitation, SOW, etc., which sections of that form
>> are required to be completed. For example, Texas would require the
>> WCAG A, AA, and applicable sections of 508. (depending on the type of
>> product or service being
>> procured) That way, mfrs could use the single version of the form for
>> all their business needs including the EN stuff, which we in the US
>> can just ignore if its there.
>>
>> So, wouldn't it make sense for ITI to publish only the "universal"
>> (International) version or am I missing something?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff Kline
>> Program Director
>> Statewide EIR Accessibility
>> Texas Department of Information Resources Phone 512.463.3248 Mobile
>> 512.426.9779
>>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >


--
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
Mobile: 571-344-1765