W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > April 2004

Comments: WCAG 2.0

From: Carol at Kognitive.com <carol@kognitive.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:28:16 -0500
Message-ID: <029801c422aa$7823e6e0$7900a8c0@VAIO>
To: <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>

Dear WCAG WG;

First of all I want to say this draft is very readable and flows nicely from
section to section.  The "informative" sections are very helpful and are
well-placed.   Below are my general comments and responses to the document:

-How should conformance claims state which guidelines are met? in metadata?
in a site accessibility statement? some other method?
*CJS: Use of logos and metadata with a statement for + status would be my
preferred way of making conformance claims

-How should conformance claims state how many Level 2 criterion are met? In
metadata? With A+n (n=number of AA criterion met)? In a site accessibility
statement? Some other method?
*CJS: I like the A+n conformance claim - though I agree that it is difficult
to compare numerically the accessibility of websites.  Because of this I
think an additional statement should be included about which criteria are
met.

-Is there a separate logo for each level: A, A+, and AA? If so,what does the
logo point to?
*CJS: I would like to see separate logos pointing to descriptions of each
level and linking to the Guideline itself.  I would imagine it would say
something along the lines of: "This logo means that compliance with WCAG 2.0
AA has been met.  This web content conforms to the following accessibility
guidelines:"

-Guideline 2.1 Make all functionality operable via a keyboard or a keyboard
interface.
Who Benefits from Guideline 2.1 (Informative)
*CJS: Suggested Addition:
Keyboard operation also benefits advanced users as they can access
information more quickly then regular navigation usually facillitates.

-Guideline 2.4 Facilitate the ability of users to orient themselves and move
within the content. [level 2 guideline]
Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4
In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50 perceived
pages, at least one of the following is provided. [V]
*CJS:  This is arbitrary - what if the document has 49,000 words - it is
still a large document but it would not be expected to meet this guideline.
And as for the 50 perceived pages I'm not sure if the perceived pages refers
to the site's navigation structure (what pages you can navigate through the
main navigation), or if this refers to pages that are just linked from other
pages in the site.  I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, but
clarification is needed.

-Guideline 2.5 Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them.
[level 2 guideline]
Who Benefits from Guideline 2.5 (Informative)
*CJS: Suggested Addition:
Identifying typing errors also helps individuals without disabilities to
avoid time-consuming mistakes and general confusion.
Helping all users to avoid mistakes increases a websites overall usability
in addition to accessibility.

-Guideline 3.1 Ensure that the meaning of content can be determined.
*CJS:  I agree with the Editorial Note regarding reinstating the allowance
of text-only variants in cases when the "original" can't be made accessible
any other way.  With the caveat that the text-only variant be updated
whenever the "original" changes.

-Guideline 3.2 Organize content consistently from "page to page" and make
interactive components behave in predictable ways.
*CJS: Suggested change for this guideline:
Organize content consistently from segment to segment and make interactive
components behave in predictable ways.
Define "segment" in the Glossary as a single interactive section of a
particular interface.  For example, an segment for a website would be a
page.

I hope you find these comments/suggestions constructive.  Feel free to
contact me with any questions.  I look forward to future drafts.

Regards,

Carol J. Smith
Kognitive Consulting, Inc.
carol@kognitive.com
773-218-6568
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 01:31:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:18 GMT