E-mail List Archives
Thread: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Mon, Dec 03 2012 5:24AM
Subject: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
No previous message | Next message →
http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n293903
From: Paul Bohman
Date: Mon, Dec 03 2012 7:05AM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
← Previous message | Next message →
And here's a link that includes Annex 1: "Websites falling under the
jurisdiction of the proposed EU Directive on accessibility of public sector
bodies' websites" (at the bottom, below the main text of the press release
and links):
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1305_en.htm
Paul Bohman, PhD
Director of Training
Deque Systems, Inc
703-646-0514, ext.121
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:24 AM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n293903
> > > >
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mon, Dec 03 2012 3:40PM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
← Previous message | Next message →
I certainly don't want to start obsessing over PDF or some such, but
it bothers me that the proposed directive does not seem to address, in
any way, the accessibility of documents (text or forms) available
through these websites.
Of course I'd prefer all forms in HTML, but the reality is that PDF is
used, to quite a large extent, for electronic forms/applications for
services or announcements, and various file formats are used for
longer text, ranging from Word documents to epub.
WCAG 2.0 actually has some excellent definitions for accessibility
that can be applied to pretty much any technology, but it is made for
the web, and when talking about websites being WCAG compliant, I
believe that does not indicate that any documents downloaded from such
websites need to be compliant with any accessibility standard.
Cheers
-B
On 12/3/12, Paul Bohman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> And here's a link that includes Annex 1: "Websites falling under the
> jurisdiction of the proposed EU Directive on accessibility of public sector
> bodies' websites" (at the bottom, below the main text of the press release
> and links):
>
> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1305_en.htm
>
> Paul Bohman, PhD
> Director of Training
> Deque Systems, Inc
> 703-646-0514, ext.121
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:24 AM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n293903
>> >> >> >>
> > > >
From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Mon, Dec 03 2012 3:56PM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
← Previous message | Next message →
Birkir, you've made a good point.
People with disabilities do more than just read web documents.
In regular work settings for example, they also write, read, and edit MS
Word documents; crunch the numbers in Excel spreadsheets; create and review
Powerpoint presentations; and other software-related tasks. These are all
native files from which PDFs and websites are created.
So when we leave documents of all kinds out of the accessibility guidelines,
we prevent this community from being involved in creating these documents,
which is just as important as accessing and reading them. MS Office
documents should be just as accessible as PDFs and websites.
But more importantly, one action puts the author in an active position of
creating and distributing content, while the other has him in a passive
position of merely receiving the content.
To me, this is a huge oversight by the WC3, the WAI and their WCAG, and our
government accessibility agencies. They're only addressing part of the
issue.
-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
New schedule for classes and workshops coming this fall and winter.
- It's our 31st year! -
From: Mark Magennis
Date: Tue, Dec 04 2012 3:01AM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
← Previous message | Next message →
My take on WCAG is that other documents are definitely covered by it as it clearly encompasses Web Content in any format, so it DOES indicate that any documents downloaded from websites need to be compliant.
The tricky bit when determining whether a PDF (or Word doc or anything else) is 'accessible' is the concept of Accessibility Support which is pretty much left to the website owners, format providers, assistive technology vendors and users to argue about in the pub isn't it?
Mark
On 3 Dec 2012, at 22:40, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
> I certainly don't want to start obsessing over PDF or some such, but
> it bothers me that the proposed directive does not seem to address, in
> any way, the accessibility of documents (text or forms) available
> through these websites.
> Of course I'd prefer all forms in HTML, but the reality is that PDF is
> used, to quite a large extent, for electronic forms/applications for
> services or announcements, and various file formats are used for
> longer text, ranging from Word documents to epub.
> WCAG 2.0 actually has some excellent definitions for accessibility
> that can be applied to pretty much any technology, but it is made for
> the web, and when talking about websites being WCAG compliant, I
> believe that does not indicate that any documents downloaded from such
> websites need to be compliant with any accessibility standard.
> Cheers
> -B
>
> On 12/3/12, Paul Bohman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> And here's a link that includes Annex 1: "Websites falling under the
>> jurisdiction of the proposed EU Directive on accessibility of public sector
>> bodies' websites" (at the bottom, below the main text of the press release
>> and links):
>>
>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1305_en.htm
>>
>> Paul Bohman, PhD
>> Director of Training
>> Deque Systems, Inc
>> 703-646-0514, ext.121
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:24 AM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n293903
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >> >> >>
> > > >
From: GF Mueden
Date: Tue, Dec 04 2012 4:23AM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websitesaccessible for all
← Previous message | Next message →
Mark put his finger on it but also stepped on my corn. The users are
not welcomed to drink with the website owners, format providers, and
assistive technology vendors and not by W3C. Website owner NYPL could
not be reached by email, format provider Adobe's website fails to offer
an explanation of PDF accessibility for various disabilities, and when
assistive technology vendor Enhanced Vision was asked about lighting for
a CCTV, I was advised to experiment. Microsoft makes it very hard to
tell them that their panels for accessibility controls are themselves
inaccessible.
Where's the pub?
Cheers, George
On 12/4/2012 5:01 AM, Mark Magennis wrote:
> My take on WCAG is that other documents are definitely covered by it as it clearly encompasses Web Content in any format, so it DOES indicate that any documents downloaded from websites need to be compliant.
>
> The tricky bit when determining whether a PDF (or Word doc or anything else) is 'accessible' is the concept of Accessibility Support which is pretty much left to the website owners, format providers, assistive technology vendors and users to argue about in the pub isn't it?
>
> Mark
>
> On 3 Dec 2012, at 22:40, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
>
>> I certainly don't want to start obsessing over PDF or some such, but
>> it bothers me that the proposed directive does not seem to address, in
>> any way, the accessibility of documents (text or forms) available
>> through these websites.
>> Of course I'd prefer all forms in HTML, but the reality is that PDF is
>> used, to quite a large extent, for electronic forms/applications for
>> services or announcements, and various file formats are used for
>> longer text, ranging from Word documents to epub.
>> WCAG 2.0 actually has some excellent definitions for accessibility
>> that can be applied to pretty much any technology, but it is made for
>> the web, and when talking about websites being WCAG compliant, I
>> believe that does not indicate that any documents downloaded from such
>> websites need to be compliant with any accessibility standard.
>> Cheers
>> -B
>>
>> On 12/3/12, Paul Bohman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>> And here's a link that includes Annex 1: "Websites falling under the
>>> jurisdiction of the proposed EU Directive on accessibility of public sector
>>> bodies' websites" (at the bottom, below the main text of the press release
>>> and links):
>>>
>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1305_en.htm
>>>
>>> Paul Bohman, PhD
>>> Director of Training
>>> Deque Systems, Inc
>>> 703-646-0514, ext.121
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:24 AM, J. B-Vincent < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n293903
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >> >> >>
> > > >
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Tue, Dec 04 2012 8:34AM
Subject: Re: EC proposes rules to make government websites accessible for all
← Previous message | No next message
On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:01 AM, Mark Magennis wrote:
> My take on WCAG is that other documents are definitely covered by it as it clearly encompasses Web Content in any format, so it DOES indicate that any documents downloaded from websites need to be compliant.
Why do you feel WCAG 2.0 encompasses "any format" including documents downloaded from websites? And if you think it encompasses "any format" then what do websites have to do with it at all? Why not just call it "CAG 2.0" and drop the "W"?
WCAG 2.0 only claims to cover "web content" but leaves the definition of web content vague. It's a big stretch to assume that WCAG 2.0 can adequately cover any content that can be transmitted electronically (i.e., downloaded from a website). That's a far more expansive claim, as the (almost entirely negative) feedback on the WCAG2ICT draft made clear.
WCAG 2.0 is about "web pages". Are non-web formats the same as "web pages" for accessibility purposes?
The answer is, at least, not obvious. Many have noted that WCAG 2.0 does not provide sufficient technical guidance on non-web formats as it does with HTML/CSS/JavaScript. If other standards are critical, then WCAG 2.0 can't be the whole story, can it?
> The tricky bit when determining whether a PDF (or Word doc or anything else) is 'accessible' is the concept of Accessibility Support which is pretty much left to the website owners, format providers, assistive technology vendors and users to argue about in the pub isn't it?
The reason it's "tricky" is because WCAG 2.0 offers no technical or operational guidance on the many questions that arise when "non-web content" (anything other than HTML/CSS/JavaScript) needs to be accessible.
The rush to re-define all content as "web content" in order to have WCAG 2.0 "apply" to it is understandable, because regulators want "a single standard". I sympathize. Regardless, wanting something does not make it so.
Best regards,
Duff Johnson
President, NetCentric US (creators of CommonLook)
ISO 32000 Intl. Project Co-Leader, US Chair
ISO 14289 US Chair
PDF Association Vice-Chair
Office: +1 617 401 8140
Mobile: +1 617 283 4226
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.CommonLook.com