W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2005

SV: Call for Review: Working Draft of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

From: Sören Hansson <Soren.Hansson@ho.se>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:59:05 +0100
Message-ID: <165B06BCB69460479AC33C2C34E6E7620EE1BF@stex02.ho.se>
To: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>, <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Cc: "Hans von Axelson" <Hans.von.Axelson@ho.se>

Comments, on Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, from the Swedish National Accessibility Centre at the Office of the Disability Ombudsman by Sören Hansson.

Comments on the set questions
1) This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft is much easier to understand than WCAG 1.0.

2) The introduction clarify the relationships between WCAG 2.0 and the four Techniques documents.

3) It's a problem that no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints but I believe in a set of "repair techniques" that, as you say, could be used by content authors who would like to create content that not only meets WCAG 2.0, but that also makes up for the shortfall in current user agents

4) It is still very important that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. It is also very important to help those, who make this information, with simple solutions to do the information accessible. If this is not possible the solution is to provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. But this solution is not a good solution since it is a special solution and not a universal design solution.

Other comments
5) Guideline 1.1 point 6, editorial note. The Swedish National Accessibility Centre agrees completely. 

6) Guideline 1.4. Level 2 Success Criteria. Since this is a rather big problem it is important to make it measurable but it is yet more important to fulfil the level 1 Success Criteria so the reader can govern the contrast by him- or herself.

7) Guideline 2.4. Level 3 Success Criteria, editorial note. Who but the author should decide when content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning? The Swedish National Accessibility Centre shares the view of the Working Group and do not believe in a test for intention.

8) Guideline 3.2. Try to use "episode to episode" or "part to part" instead of "page to page"

9) Guideline 3.2. Level 2 Success Criteria, point 6 about the destination of each link. Our opinion is that this criterion should be this specific.

Suggestions
10) Offer basic information about the organization/website and information of central social interest in easy-to-read versions on the website. This makes websites accessible to people with a developmental disability or incipient dementia.

11) Start each section of the website with a short summary in plain language. This makes it easer for everybody to understand if they have come to the right place or if they should search on another website. It gives also a good service to those who have hard of understanding whatever it depends on, for example languages difficulties, developmental disability or incipient dementia.  

12) Offer basic information about the organization/website and information of central social interest in sign language interpreted versions on the website (national sign language). This makes websites accessible to severely hearing-impaired or deaf people.

You may already have paid attention to these suggestions and I apologise if I have missed that.

Best regards
Sören Hansson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Postal address:
Office of the Disability Ombudsman
National Accessibility Centre
Sören Hansson
Box 49132, SE-100 29 Stockholm, Sweden
Visitors´ address: S:t Eriksgatan 44, 3 tr.
E-mail: soren.hansson@ho.se 
Phone: +46 8 6930367 or +46 70 2802925
Text phone: +46 8 21 39 39,
Fax: +46 8 20 43 53
Website: www.ho.se 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] För Judy Brewer
Skickat: den 25 november 2004 07:06
Till: WAI Interest Group
Ämne: Call for Review: Working Draft of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0


Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

A new Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 
2.0) as well as four supporting documents were published 19 November 2004. 
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) invites 
you to comment on these documents. W3C Working Drafts provide opportunities 
for public comment during the development of a specification. Please send 
comments to the public comments mailing list by 3 January 2005:
    public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

WCAG 2.0 addresses accessibility of Web content for people with 
disabilities. It will apply to a wider range of Web technologies than WCAG 
1.0 and is intended to be understandable to a wider audience.

Since the previous public Working Draft of WCAG 2.0, published on 30 July 
2004, the WCAG WG has incorporated over 200 public comments. To help 
address usability issues raised with the July drafts, WAI also developed 
"Introduction to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Working 
Draft Documents" as a starting point for WCAG 2.0. The Introduction 
illustrates the relationships between WCAG 2.0 and the supporting 
documents, and links to the current version of each document. The 
Introduction is available at:
    <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20>

The five documents published on 19 November 2004:
    - Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
      <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/>
    - General Techniques for WCAG 2.0
      <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GENERAL-20041119/>
    - HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0
      <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20041119/>
    - CSS Techniques for WCAG 2.0
      <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20041119/>
    - Client-side Scripting Techniques for WCAG 2.0:
      <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-SCRIPT-TECHS-20041119/>

The Working Group is interested in discussion of the following questions.

1. In general, is this WCAG 2.0 Working Draft easy to understand?
    Please identify phrases that are difficult to understand. Please
    suggest wording for the Working Group to consider.

2. Does "Introduction to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
    Working Draft Documents" clarify the relationships between WCAG 2.0
    and the four Techniques documents?

3. In WCAG 1.0, the WCAG WG identified temporary solutions for authors;
    several guidelines begin "until user agents..."  If WCAG 2.0 assumes
    that end-users have browsers that conform to the User Agent
    Accessibility Guidelines, WCAG 2.0 becomes simpler, but what is the
    effect on the end-user?  Please read and comment on the Editorial
    Note at:
       <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20041119/#baseline-note>

4. The first public Working Draft of Client-side Scripting Techniques
    for WCAG 2.0 was published to solicit early review and discussion.
    Related to question #2 (about Baseline Technologies Assumption)
    the WCAG WG asks, "Are functional alternatives required for content
    that contains scripting?" In other words, should WCAG 2.0 move away
    from the alternative functionality requirement of WCAG 1.0
    Checkpoint 6.3 [1]?
       [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-scripts>


Please send your comments by 3 January 2005 to:
      public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
The archive for that mailing list is available at:
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/>


When sending comments, please:
      - State the issue as clearly and simply as possible.
      - Provide links to specific examples or references.
      - If possible, suggest solutions.
      - Remember that the Working Group welcomes volunteers
        to help with the work.

When waiting for responses to comments:
      - Track your issue in the open issues list
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/condensedreports/wcag2_issues.php>
      - Follow up on the mailing list if you don't find your issue in the
        open issues list.

Please let us know if you have any questions. Many thanks in advance for 
your comments. Additional information on the Working Group is available at:
    <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/>

Note:
Our target is for WCAG 2.0 to become a W3C Recommendation in the first half 
of 2005. Until then, WCAG 1.0 will continue to be the current and stable 
document to use. If your site currently conforms to WCAG 1.0, be assured 
that conformance to WCAG 2.0 will not require a complete redesign of your 
site but it will likely require some tweaks.

Note:
This message may be circulated to other lists, avoiding cross-postings 
where possible.

Wendy Chisholm - W3C Team Contact for WCAG WG
Judy Brewer - Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C
Gregg Vanderheiden - Chair of WCAG WG, and Director of Trace R&D Center



-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 16:22:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:05 UTC