> EOWG Home Page > Standards Harmonization

Change Log: Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for Web Accessibility

This page records change requests and changes made to the draft WAI Resource Page Why Standards Harmonization is Essential for Web Accessibility. Please send additions or corrections to wai-eo-editors@w3.org.

Last updated on $Date: 2006/03/11 22:52:14 $ by $Author: jbrewer $

Change requests from EOWG teleconference 10 March 2006

1. DONE [on standards restrictions] Consider clarifying the consequences more
2. NOT DONE BUT SLIGHT CLARIFICATION [on local languages] Consider alternative to "allows" though not necessarily so far as "encourages"
3. DONE [on but it's worldwide] Add something like "...and is supported by the same kinds of assistive technologies" 
4. DONE [on single country] Change myth to belief, to avoid casting negative tone
5. TRIED; HOW ABOUT FOR A LATER VERSION? [somewhere?] Look for place to add language refering to the fact that developers are communicating with the whole world, not just the local audience -- but recognize that some developers aren't interested in the broader audience
6. DONE [unified market] Clarify the leveraging effect more; not coming through
7. DONE Also [editor's note] check consistency of how refering to standards harmonization throughout the document
8. DONE Complete copyedits [editor's note: heavily copyedited the first subsection of "current situation"]
9. DONE Also [editor's note] re-synchronize the new table text with the linearized version of the table.
10. DONE Add WAI-TIES link/acknowledgement.
11. Also [editor's note] set up/send out survey form, w/ explanatory email.

Change requests from EOWG f2f meeting 2 March 2006

1. DONE bold "stds harmonisation" in para 1 overview
2. DONE bold "a consistent international set of technical standards for accessibility"
   
3. DONE breakout (and try bolding) web content etc to a list
4. USED THE SOLUTION ABOVE try the following edit: "This document uses "standards harmonization" to refer to the adoption of a consistent international set of technical standards for web accessibility. Technical standards for web accessibility refer to content, browsers and media players; authoring tools used to develop Web content, and the accessibility of the authoring tools themselves."
   
5. DONE BUT CHECK ACCESSIBILITY try presenting as a table of driver and answer - and shorter / more concise
   
6. USED DIFFERENT LEAD-IN also try a better intro sentence - maybe talking about "misconceptions that have contributed to ..."
   
7. DONE add something to resource section, as preface before policy links, such as: "While governmental laws and policies naturally will differ according to local needs, it is still possible to refer, within governmental policies, to a consistent set of international technical standards... see the following documents for examples of different ways that this can be done."
   
8. DONE add "Similarly, organizational policies, while necessarily differing according to the circumstances of the org, can still reference a common set of technical guidelines"
   
9. DONE add in references to wcag and atag 2.0
   
10. DONE stress more that it is a *world*wide*web and the rest of the world is looking at your material
11. NOT THE KEY PRIORITY Under Abstract consider including something along the lines of ".. and calls for wider (or greater) participation and cooperation for developing a single set of standards."
12. DONE In the first sentence under Overview, should semicolons be replaced with commas? Or present the items in a list?
13. NOT DONE; IT'S ALREADY A LIST Same comment applies to Action Steps.
14. NOT DONE; UNNECESSARY AND WORDY I suppose Consequences (h2 heading) is part of Current situation (which is also h2). For clarity, better to say Consequences of fragmentation?
15. DONE After stating what is meant by fragmentation upfront under overview, it may be better to drop the words
    "Different types of modifications" under current situation and begin directly with "Fragmentation of Web accessibility guidelines"

Additional changes made 1 March 2006 to http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/standard-harmon-20060301.html

• [DONE] remove note "will be offered to public & other groups for review"
• [DONE-CONFIRM!] changed "unified international standards for web content, auth tools, user agents..." to "a consistent international set of technical standards"
• [DONE-CONFIRM] Copyedited throughout, particular check these:
• "Various factors"
• [DONE-CONFIRM!] Added "technical" standards to differentiate from policies, for which we are not discussing harmonization

Change requests from EOWG survey in May 2004

1. [DONE] last 2 bullets under "current situation" are not parallel; fix
   
2. [DONE] explain "evaluation tools"
3. [DONE] typo -- extra "g" in step 5
4. [DONE] under organizations, explain "sector" e.g "economic sector"
5. [DONE] under consequences, change "web developers" to "web development" for parallel structure
6. [CONFIRM - ADD WHEN MOVE TO NOTE FORMAT IN FUTURE, AND RESEARCH FORMER CONSTRIBUTORS]  list specific acknowledgements
7. [FIXED DIFFERENTLY] replace "for" with "of" I think the last two "for"s should be "of"s in: "In this document "standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility of Web content, for authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and for user agents including browsers and media players." As is, it states that there should be unified standards but does not include for accessibility: "In this document "standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility of Web content, [the adoption of unified international standards] for authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and [the adoption of unified international standards] for user agents including browsers and media players." I think what is meant is standards for accessibility: "In this document "standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility of Web content, [the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility] _of_ authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and [the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility] _of_ user agents including browsers and media players." corrected would be: "In this document "standards harmonization" refers to the adoption of unified international standards for accessibility of Web content, of authoring tools used to develop Web sites, and of user agents including browsers and media players."
   
8. [DONE] guidelines plural, techniques lower case "There is sometimes discomfort with a guideline not developed locally, yet WAI guidelines have been developed with input from many countries around the world." Guideline singular is awkward here - recommend making it plural "guidelines" "W3C continues to update and refine the WAI guidelines and supporting Techniques documents and" Techniques should be lowercase to match lowercase guidelines used throughout - because here it refers to multiple documents, not a specific document.
   
9. reality checks for credibility
   • [DECLINED: YES, AT LEAST AS PART OF REGS-TYPE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO THE LEVEL OF MANY ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS] "There are sometimes barriers to adoption of non-ISO standards by some governments, yet W3C is the leading standards organization for the Web industry, and many of those same governments have already standardized onto HTML and XML, which are W3C specifications." This argument seems a bit uncomfortable. Much of the focus is on countries adopting accessibility standards as legal requirements. Have any governments adopted HTML and XML as legal requirements? If not, then it seems like it's an apples & oranges comparison.
   • [DONE] "some authoring tools remove accessibility information such as alternative text or captions." I thought we couldn't come up with any that still do that so we were going to either leave that out, or say they did it in the past.
   • [DECLINED: SOME LARGE ORGANIZATIONS, AND SOME GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, PROVIDE TOOLS & TRAINING] "When there is fragmentation of standards... Organizations must provide different authoring tools, evaluation tools, training resources and technical assistance for their Web developers,..." - In practice, I doubt many orgs provide different authoring tools, and maybe not any of the others.
   • [DECLINED: YES, AS PER CHAPTER BY TREVIRANUS & BREWER, & WORK OF IMS GLOBAL LEARNING CONSORTIUM] Can we support the ideas in the "information repositories" section?
10. tweaking
    • [DONE, ROUGHLY] "When there is fragmentation of standards, organizations with audiences spanning different regions, countries, or sectors must carefully monitor different sets of requirements. Organizations must provide different authoring tools, evaluation tools, training resources and technical assistance for their Web developers, which can take resources away from actually implementing accessibility. They must push harder to make the business case for accessibility within the organization." Last sentence not quite right - "push harder" isn't quite the right idea and "they must" is too all-inclusive (plus, every sentence in that paragraph has a "must" and I'm not sure any of them are quite right). Instead, I think the idea is something like: The increase in cost and effort of fragmented standards makes the business case [more difficult to get adopted].
    • [DONE] "Availability of authoring tools conforming to ATAG 1.0 is key to making the Web accessible because so many people who publish content on the Web would have at their fingertips tools making it easy to create accessible Web sites." "at their fingertips" not quite right - e.g., tools cost money so not at fingertips
11. [DONE] Editor missing. Add "Editor: Judy Brewer" at bottom?
    
12. [DECLINE, SEEMS UNLIKELY] "For Web developers... development of accessible Web sites first requires... a deliberate effort to apply WCAG 1.0." Someone might argue against the assertion that developing accessibility Web sites _requires_ WCAG1.0.
    
13. [DONE, DIFFERENT EDIT] grammar & word correction "Assist in preparing authorized translations of WAI guidelines (once authorized standards policy goes into effect).g" Should it be: "(once THE authorized TRANSLATIONS policy goes into effect)." ?
14. [EDITED DIFFERENTLY] Authoring tools The last paragraph is properly written as subjunctive -- don't we wish AT [editor -- AT= authoring tools here] were followed! My wistful thinking/diatribe: The excuse/alibi that AT evolution awaits WCAG 2.0 is getting stale, given that WCAG 1.0 [editor: ATAG 1.0?] has been generally ignored. The long development cycle for changing AT is also, as newer releases aren't much improved in the tools I've tried to use.
    
15. [EDITED] Action Steps 5. unclear ...(once authorized ?translation? standards policy goes into effect) XgX I find "Translating WAI Documents" http://www.w3.org/WAI/translation.html which might be mentioned under related resources below.
    
16. [CONFIRM-EMPH on POLICY LINKS? EDITED FOR NEW RESOURCES] Related Resources I believe it needs a pointer to where in WAI to find the guidelines referenced throughout. WAI Resources: Guidelines http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/#gl

Change requests for next version

• [from 14 May 2004] consider adding example of uaag - wcag synergy in next version
• [from 14 May 2004] consider linking to "component synergy" resource on WAI site once that is available
  

Change log and requests from 14 May 2004

• [DONE] don't reference Participation page. add to list for later, after Participation page is updated
• [DONE] after 2nd sentence in organization: add something like "and this might take time away from implementing Web accessibility." [ADDED: ", which can take resources away from actually implementing accessibility."]
• [DONE; AND ADDED FOR LATER] in browser subsection, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: remove it. add to list for later: add example if good one.
• [DONE] browser section: first paragraph, add short sentence inbetween 1st & 2nd sentence: Conflicting standards for browsers can slow implementation of accessibility support.
• [DONE] try to add 1 or 2 sentences to browser subsection highlighting the synergy between browser and content standards harmonization
• [ADDED FOR LATER] maybe add to list for later: after "components" done (that discusses synergy between different WAI standards), consider linking to it

Change log and requests from 7 May 2004

• Complete copy-editing of document; substantial rewording of most sections but no substantial changes in meaning.

• [DONE, BUT NEED SOME DISCUSSION] see comments from Andrew on EOWG list:
• [DONE, BUT NEED SOME DISCUSSION] see comments from Andrew on eo-editors list:
• [DONE] ntroduce the term fragmentation better -- this is multiple standards, etc
  
• [DONE] fix second sentence of 2nd para in browser section (effective interoperability....)
• [DONE] add examples for complex visuals (images like maps and graphs)
  
• [DONE] consider adding something assist tech & mainstream develop dialog in the action item list, perhaps as "promote dialog"  AND try to fit it in with the browser section as well
• [DONE] change screen enlarger to screen magnified
• [DONE] maybe try adding captioned media
• [DONE] check conformance profile for assistive technologies to render the information [check w/ ian jacobs on that]
• [DONE] broaden action item one (see andrew's comment) to include other working groups;
  
• DISCUSS point them to information on how to participate
• [DONE] continue to highlight wcag 2.0 involvement
• [DONE] add an option to monitor development of guidelines
• [DONE] try saying everything about involvement in w3c as one item, with different options, but make it sound simple. nested section?
• [DONE] add an action item about about translation
• [DONE] redirecting energies from localization to awareness and implementation support
• [DONE] replace some of the 2nd phrase of roll forward action item with wording from andrew "update new standards"
• [DONE] recheck wording of promoting uaag and atag against andrew's suggested
• [DONE] number the action steps (disclaimer about non-priority)
• [DONE] think about reorganizing the document more clearly into sections such as: what it is, why it occurs, the consequences, the benefits of harmonization, what to do about it
• [DONE] try moving fragmentation types up, splitting types and factors
• [DONE] try to group other sections under consequences
• [DONE] don't overdo the positive; need people to understand that there is a significant issue
  

Change requests from 2 March 2004

browsers ... section

• [RECHECK] change "key" (so not confusing with keys on keyboard)
• Judy go over section with Matt to see what the issues are in browsers & multimedia players for middle paragraph - replace examples or figure out how to address controversial examples
• add the idea that if assistive technologies did more, there would be less burden on authors, and on what's included in WCAG. also maybe directly counter the mis-assumption that AT can do it all. (might need a separate section on assistive technologies afterall)
• try to capture the interrelationship/cycle of a WCAG requirement that user agents don't support it so authoring tools don't want to include it, & such
• [DONE] if needed, start with transition that we're now talking about other than content guidelines - then go to fragmentation (to match other format) - go into more explanation of the fragmentation of browsers implementation, CSS as an example of what we don't want to happen! say burden was on millions of developers, rather than if a few browsers had done it right - then go into harmonization & world peace
• [DONE] "web standards" needs clarification
• [DONE] depending on how section changes: explain "render reliably" more - test on different platforms ... also that _was_ a problem but now not so much of an issue ...
• [DONE] more PWD perspective, consequences, on bad browsers & AT

action steps

• [DONE] add something about user agent guidelines
• last one increased collaborations between web application developers with regard to implementation of WAI guidelines & looking forward to new requirements
• [DONE] make the action steps list a longer list of shorter items

other sections

• [STILL NEED] something about clarifying that currently most fragmentation is in content guidelines (rather than AT & UA)

Change requests from 27 February 2004

• [DONE] Overview, 3rd paragraph ("The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has ...") move to the end as solution to above paragraphs.
• [DONE] Overview, 3rd paragraph ("Together these three guidelines provide complementary solutions resulting in more comprehensive and effective accessibility. W3C/WAI is currently developing advanced (2.0) versions of these guidelines."). change to not degrade 1.0 versions with 2.0, maybe something like, "W3C continues to advance by refining and updating ..."
• [DONE] Abstract: make subjunctive (e.g., "It examines how adoption of a consistent standard for Web content accessibility drives ..." to "It examines how adoption of a consistent standard for Web content accessibility WOULD drive[-s-] ..."
• [DONE] Abstract: change: "This document explains the key role that standards harmonization plays in increasing accessibility of the Web for people with disabilities." to " ... key role that harmonization of standards play ..."
• [RECHECK] Web Developers: first sentence missing verb.
• Web Developers: check current status of authoring tools - do any still strip out accessibility stuff? (chuck check system he knows of, helle check danish report, judy check with matt)
• [DONE] Web Developers: "It requires working around features of authoring tools that make it hard to build accessible Web sites: for instance, tools that produce inaccurate markup, or that remove accessibility information such as alternative text or captions." clarify SOME tools.
• plus, charmane sending to list idea about implementations of CMS also being part of the issue
• [DONE] Fragmentation: think about WHO it's impacting (authoring tool developers, web developers, policy makers, etc.) so be more specific about audience impact & add split back into the list)
• [DONE] Fragmentation: Editor attempt to highlight bullet points better
• [DONE] Fragmentation: "The belief that disability requirements might be different locally -- yet the same types of disabilities exist around the world" -- change to "might be unique locally"
• [DONE] Fragmentation: drivers section: try to copyedit away the negatives, be careful of tone & negative message
• [DONE] Fragmentation: "local organizations' interest in having a role in writing their own guidelines -- yet there is a great need for other forms of implementation support from local organizations" needs clarification - there are things that local organziations do need to do, but not write their own guidelines!
• [DONE] Action Steps: look at rewording roll-forward & "increased understanding on the part of policy-makers and standards- developers of the relationship between harmonization of Web accessibility standards and the speed of Web accessibility progress;" transformation? proliferation?
• [DONE] Action Steps: last one, try adding roll forward idea (nut not necessarily terminology)

Change requests from 13 February 2004

• [DONE] Modify tone of "With so many reasons why standards harmonization is essential to Web accessibility, there are many compelling reasons that drive the development of divergent standards" (misguided): be careful not to legitimize the fragmentation drivers presented.
• [DONE?] Add "thinking that gov't can't point to a w3c standard" or foreign standard
• [DONE] Try rebutting the fragmentation drivers in place, e.g. if not wanting to adopt something not developed locally, join the international discussion
• [DONE] In terms of rebutting frag drivers, important to stress how much this has already been an international effort, also give more background on broad participation to date in at least one other part of document
• [DONE] Change "under development" to "continuous development"
• don't make it look like a distinct new world, emphasize continuity between 1.0 and 2.0 and into the future
• try using the term "convergence path" ... convergence consensus ... maybe fit in consensus somewhere around here ... look at wcag 2.0 as an international standard ... convergence ... 
• [Assistive technologies very fragmented themselves -- stds harmonization helps reduce the difficulty there, and is cost-effective]
• user agent guidelines ... standardized ... help assistive technologies work better ... it's the same as the authoring tools as well ... compare how the similar benefits derive ... [eg build around 508 sec 1194.21] 
• [DONE] emphasize cost-effectiveness of stds harmonization in organization ...
• [***for later: consider collecting abstracts from our documents into an collection of abstracts]
• [DONE] change region to region or country
• [DONE] move the 2nd comment up to 1st place in overview
• say something about stds harmonization actually supporting innovation[?] if possible
• action section: emphasize wcag 2.0 is part of a continuum 
• [DONE?] action section: make them more concrete and explain how to ... include a broader range of needs and audiences ... who do you want to include ... more different countries ... 
• [DONE] fix copyright date
• rapid reviewers: william, henk, sylvie, carol, justin.
  

Change requests from 19 December 2003

• [DONE] add in direct mention of authoring tool accessibility guidelines, and explain how they relate to wcag, so that people can see how the one leads into the other
• [DONE] continue to seek appropriate way to add in mention of uaag
• [DONE] add in a section explaining relationship between the three guidelines
  
• [DONE] in particular, strengthen discussion of authoring tools again towards end of document & in action steps, however without losing other key arguments
• [WHERE????] need to add in the point that harmonization of accessibility guidelines also promote greater understanding and social acceptance of web accessibility (harmonization leads clarity, which leads confidence, which results in better acceptance)
• [STARTED] action steps ought to be action steps not grand goals, e.g. demand atag-conformant auth tools and use the "selecting" questions to query your friendly software vendor. shorten current action steps phrasing but then say "for instance, do this by ..."
• [DONE] action two: flip the involvement to first place
  
• [DONE] action one: promote better understanding (action items ought to start with verbs)
• [DONE] add an action item: recommending that organizations build in the possibility of a roll-forward provision
• [PLACEHOLDER] develop a better transition to the discussion of wcag 2.0 as a convergence target
• [PLACEHOLDER] need to add in the point that developing home-grown guidelines obligates organizations to maintain those guidelines into the future as web technologies evolve -- explain that this is because the web technologies are constantly evolving
• [PLACEHOLDER] qualify that in certain cases, local extensions may be essential, but that this can be done by establishing the international guideline as the minimum standard to be met. enable local additions, but explain the detrimental impact of changing accessibility provisions on  implementation in authoring software -- and explain that even the dropping of accessibility provisions may also have some impact. break it into step by step layers of impact.
• [DONE] [editor experiment] better acknowledge the variety of motivators for fragmentation when discussing the cases of local extensions.
  
• [PLACEHOLDER] do talk about incremental benefit from user agent side -- add the paragraph back in about user agent guidelines -- somewhere

Change requests from 31 October 2003 [all done or accounted for]

General

• [DONE] FIRST: attempt to do an outline of what the argument is
• [NOT] attempt to split the document into two sections 1. how harmonization of web content impacts authoring tools 2. everything else

Beginning

• [DONE] provide some background or history near the beginning
• [NOT -- TOO INDIRECT] consider: currently left to the management's initiative ... if good auth tools channel one towards implementing ... then web xs can be achieved much more speedily
• [DONE] clarify and eliminate redundanies in first paragraph of the executive summary
• [DONE] reconsider the introduction and executive summary order
• [DONE] add up front a clear statement of what harmonization is
• [DONE] consider replacing "examines" with "explains" in intro
• [DONE] clarify that the harmonization is by different org & countries, rather than harmonization of WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, etc.
• [DONE] add something clearer in intro about overall benefits to web accessibility of standards harmonization

Authoring Tools Section

• [DONE] build the first two paragraphs in key role of autoring tools into the web developers section
• [NOT -- TOO INDIRECT] clarify misunderstanding - auth tools are the key tools for building web sites ... when some tools allow you implement some features, and others don't, then this confuses the developers
• [DONE] Consider switching third (starting with "For authoring tool developers, deciding which features to build into software") & fourth paragraphs

Change requests from 10 October 2003 [all done]

• [DONE] look for ways to orient beginners w/o adding much additional text up front
• [SUPERSEDED] change first subheading to "Executive Summary"
• [DONE] clean up references to organizations, companies, countries, etc.
• [DONE] put the essence/main point at the very beginning
• [DONE] think of other metaphors of piecemeal & sea/C-change. e.g., content guidelines harmonization is catalyst for driving improvement in authoring tools. better authoring tools create a cascade effect in availability of accessibile Web content - accessible content would cascade across the Web

Change requests from 3 October 2003 [some done]

1. [PLACEHOLDER] Add in section on User Agent accessibility guidelines
2. [DONE] Better align the introduction with the content of the document once user agent material is in there.
3. [PLACEHOLDER] For user agent section (or elsewhere?), consider incorporating something on designing to different browsers as some of the context for other sources of fragmentation in the past.
4. [PLACEHOLDER] Add in specific examples of divergent guidelines: For instance, note that in such & such an area, requirements differ on such & such checkpoints or provisions, and then trace through implications onto the authoring tool itself and trace through to the assessment tools.
5. [PLACEHOLDER] Consider somehow addressing issue of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 differences and transition in the "current status" section.
6. [GAVE IT A SEPARATE SECTION INSTEAD] Include the benefits towards assistive technology both in pwd section and in user agent section.
7. [PLACEHOLDER] Add a separate section just on assistive technology --- assistive technology needs to be at the same level as user agents and authoring tools.
8. [WHAT WAS THIS???] Careful about conformance levels being considered standards in some places; overall, the document needs some orientation to the terms used.
9. [PLACEHOLDER] Focus more on what can be done rather than a negative litany, and provide more explicit suggestions to encourage individuals and organization in and outside of W3C to comment ... 
10. [DONE] Remove the suite nav (and fix the stylesheet bug)
11. [DONE] Shorten text in section -- too verbose.  A 50% text reduction would be nice ...
12. [DONE] Reinforce the emphasis in the document on the authoring tool role in moving from "piecemeal" to "wholesale" change
13. [DONE] Move current status much nearer the top of the document
14. [DONE] Shorten subheadings 

Change requests from 26 September 2003

• [DONE] document title should be something other than just "standards.html" -- gives the impression that the document is broader in scope than it is.
• [DONE (kept)] yes it is important to have a section commenting to at least some extent on the current status of harmonization/fragmentation of Web accessibility standards.
• [DONE] need to add a section reflecting the experience of organizations with global reach, where they cross many jurisdictional boundaries and are therefore subject to a wide variety of different requirements; it is extremely difficult to research and monitor different requirements for Web accessibility in every region. this section could be labeled "for implementation managers" standardization allows organizations to have a centralized resource for cross-functional initiatives such as making the organization's entire Web site accessible.
• [DONE] perhaps more could be said from the perspective of users of assistive technology and the impact on them.
• [DONE] be careful about the use of the term "definition" in introduction when you really mean "description."
• continue to address WAI guidelines other than WCAG, but differentiate references to each in the text more crisply.
• [DONE] look up Bert Bos' document and Karl Dubost's document which both relate to the topic of standards harmonization, and cross-reference or coordinate with as appropriate.

Copyright   ©  1994-2006 W3C (MIT , ERCIM , Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark , document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.