W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-atag2-comments@w3.org > June 2009

WCAG WG comments on ATAG working draft of 21 May 2009

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:28:46 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0906081128w992dd27ud41c2c42bb0f1ef8@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-atag2-comments@w3.org
* Comment 1:

See Guideline A.1.2.

   "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow … requirements
[which] are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0 …
success criteria. "

We believe that what it means for a non-web-based authoring tool to be
functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0  is undefined. This is very
important, but it is a large task and  may not be a WAI problem to
solve.

Could/should desktop accessibility standards like ANSI/HFES 200 Part 2
/ ISO 9241-171 be used instead? e.g.
   "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility
standards for desktop software. The following are some example
software accessibility standards: ISO, Section 508 1194.21."

We don't think that multiple levels are necessary. (A122, A123). These
standards don't necessarily have comparable levels.

* Comment 2 (editorial):
The introduction says "This section is informative, except where
noted." This seems confusing. It might be better to label the
information and normative subsections as such.

* Comment 3:
Several Success Criteria have clarifying examples “(e.g., …)” in their
body. These should be avoided. They can be converted to notes or moved
to the understanding document. (FWIW, WCAG does have some normative
use of “e.g.”, mostly in definitions, but never in SC.)

* Comment 4:
Some guidelines end with “Applicability Notes”. The formating and
location makes it less than obvious that these apply to all Success
Criteria within a Guideline. Suggest moving these before Success
Criteria (within a Guideline grouping), or repeating for each Success
Criteria. The Success Criteria should stand on their own, and Success
Criteria can be anticipated to be extracted from Guideline context, so
this these Applicability Notes are problematic as used.

* Comment 5

 Guideline B.2.2. Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.

The last “Applicability Notes” for this Guideline includes a rather
large exception for third-part content. We recommend handling this
with a Statement of Partial Conformance (like WCAG).

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 18:29:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 June 2009 18:29:20 GMT