Commenter: Andrew Arch Email: andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org Affiliation: Vision Australia Date: 21 June 2006 Comment numbers continued from previous submission Apologies in advance (and arrears) for typing errors ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #18 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: Introduction 3) Part of Item: opening 4) Comment Type: t 5) Comment: para 1 says thaty WCAG 2.0 makes web content available to a wide range of disabilities, including "blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, and others". It seems that learning difficulties and cognitive limitations are not addressed to any significant extent, in fact even less than WCAG 1.0. It seems the emphasis is even more on 'blindness and low vision' and 'limited movement'. THis may be becasue the strong move to testability, but given that this is the case, then lets not kid everyone (or no-one) that WCAG 2.0 address all disabilities. 6) Proposed Change: change wording to leave these out at this stage. Seriously consider the next task for the working group to be to properly address the needs of these groups with suplement or addenda to WCAG 2.0 (or release as a WCAG 2.1) ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #19 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: Guidelines 3) Part of Item: general 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: Many SC seem out of place at their specified levels. It seems many SC Levels have not been reconsidered since the November 2005 release whe the levels related to 'coding', 'design/appearance' and 'additional'. As this is no longer the basis for the Levels, then the SC need to be more closely re-examined as to the appropriate level they should fall under. 6) Proposed Change: re-examine all SC in the light of the April 2006 Conformance Level definitions (cf Nov 2005 Levels definitions) ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #20 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.1.1 3) Part of Item: bullet 1 4) Comment Type: Q 5) Comment: "If text alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text content." Surely in this case the content has failed SC 1.1.1? 6) Proposed Change: leave the second sentence out! ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #21 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.1.1 3) Part of Item: bullet 3 4) Comment Type: E 5) Comment: "If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities." 6) Proposed Change: "If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being ?accessed? by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities." ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #22 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.2 3) Part of Item: levels 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: It is too easy to fail SC at Level 1 - most organisations I have worked with will not go to this length in most cases, hence will never be able to claim even "A" conformance. In fact, on most Government and corporate sites I have worked with, the provision of a transcript and/or a script gives all the information needed to substitute for the multimedia 6) Proposed Change: Level 1 should have SC along the lines of "provide a transcript if spoken words only and no action" and "provide a script including the dialogue if video wit activity" SC 1.2.1 & 1.2.2 should be moved up a level, and all other SC reconsidered as to the appropriate level. ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #23 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.3.4 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: "variations in presentation of text can be programmatically determined." - yes, a graphical browser can display italicised text, but not much, if any, AT can determine its existance. 6) Proposed Change: reconsider/clarify/strengthen this SC, or drop the last part. ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #24 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.4.1 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: After playing with the luminosity algorithm for some time now, selected colour combinations are still almost unreadable - eg the algorithm allows blue-on-blue and orange-on-red, both combinations are very difficult to read by anyone. For an example see http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/. IMHO, the colour-difference aspect of the old draft colour contrast algorithm needs to be reintroduced. For colours schemes that pass luminosity, but fail colour difference, see some of the combinations on http://juicystudio.com/services/coloursaferatio.php?background=003 and related pages. 6) Proposed Change: add a colour difference aspect into the colour contrast SC ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #25 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 1.4 3) Part of Item: SC levels 4) Comment Type: Q 5) Comment: Under the new Conformance level definitions, I strongly suggest that 1.4.1 & 1.4.2 should be Level 1 and that 1.4.3 & 1.4.4 should be Level 2 6) Proposed Change: reconsider the Levels the SC fall under - move them up a level ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #26 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.2.1 3) Part of Item: bullet 3 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: 20 seconds may well not be long enough to 'hit any key' for some people with severe physical or motor disabilities. Also, what form does the warning take? It needs to be accessible to all as well! 6) Proposed Change: drop this bullet ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #27 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.2.5 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: This should be a level 2 SC - for many people with reading difficulties, or using AT, reading a page is a time consuming exersize, and page refreshes may not allow them to read to the end. 6) Proposed Change: move this SC up a level & consider strengthening it WRT content refreshing automatically ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #28 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.4 3) Part of Item: levels 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: Under the new Conformance level definitions, I strongly suggest that 2.4.3 should be a Level 1 SC & that 2.4.5 should be a Level 2 SC 6) Proposed Change: adjust the levels of 2.4.3 & 2.4.5 ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #29 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.4 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: Q 5) Comment: What is the difference between 2.4.4 & 2.4.8? They seem very similar. 6) Proposed Change: ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #30 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.4.3 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: title alone will not make a page understandable - they need to be clear and understandable, and unique (within the site or subsite) 6) Proposed Change: reword 2.4.3, e.g. "Web units have understandable/clear and unique titles." ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #31 1) Document Abbreviation: TD 2) Item Number: 2.4.1 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: currently just "Providing skip links to enhance page navigation" - this needs to be specified as a visible means of being able to identify and utilise the ability to skip links 6) Proposed Change: Strengthen this technique so that sighted, but physically disabled, people can utilise the link ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #32 1) Document Abbreviation: WD 2) Item Number: 2.4.4 & 2.4.8 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: E 5) Comment: the current wording is hard to comprehend - why not use the simpler wording from WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.1? 6) Proposed Change: Simplify the language. ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #33 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 2.5 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: The Guideline says "Help users avoid mistakes ..." - none of the SC appear to address this aspect. THey all seem to relate to the second part "... make it easy to correct mistakes that do occur". Surely recommendations such as linear form design, clear and understanable labels, placing examples before the form control, providing instructions, etc, would address the first part. 6) Proposed Change: add some SC to address "Help users avoid mistakes" ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #34 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 3.1 3) Part of Item: levels 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: What is the point of having 3.1.1 at Level 1, but 3.1.2 at Level 2? My screen reader will then just read the entire page in the web unit language! 6) Proposed Change: Move 3.1.2 to Level 1 ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #35 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 3.1.2 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: E 5) Comment: needs a qualifier 6) Proposed Change: change wording to "The natural language of each passage or phrase in the Web unit can be programmatically determined when it differes from the natural language of the web unit" ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #36 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 3.1.2 3) Part of Item: Note 4) Comment Type: T 5) Comment: Why is a word different from a phrase? 6) Proposed Change: Drop the Note! ------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #37 1) Document Abbreviation: W2 2) Item Number: 3.1.5 3) Part of Item: 4) Comment Type: Q 5) Comment: Everyones I speak to has trouble with the UN definition approach 6) Proposed Change: Why not just say 'X years of schooling'? Or something else equally understandable drawn from the UN definition.