Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

We understand your concern but had to balance other issues as well,
including difficulty of authoring and many gray areas about what
actually constitutes a language change, and therefore have left this
as it is.

Regards,

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

On Nov 3, 2007 2:48 PM, Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Loretta,
> I do not think I will ever understand how a page that does not markup language changes can ever be considered accessible.  Try using a screen reader on a page with multiple languages.
>
> Jon
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:11:12 -0700
> >From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
> >Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007
> >To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
> >
> >Dear Jon Gunderson,
> >
> >Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of
> >the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group
> >has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be
> >publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that,
> >we would like to know whether we have understood your comments
> >correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.
> >
> >Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
> >us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
> >you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also
> >that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of
> >the entire document at this time.
> >
> >Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
> >resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the
> >archived copy of your original comment on
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
> >also include links to the relevant changes in the WCAG 2.0 Editor's
> >Draft of May-October 2007 at
> >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/
> >
> >Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we
> >cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the
> >comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >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
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Comment 1: Language changes should be Level A
> >Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0048.html
> >(Issue ID: 1969)
> >----------------------------
> >Original Comment:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612134547.CA28447B9F@mojo.w3.org
> >(Issue ID: LC-760)
> >
> >Part of Item:
> >Comment Type: TE
> >Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> >
> >This should be success criteria 1 like in the Priority 1 WCAG 1.0
> >requirement.  It is impossible for people using speech to guess at
> >language changes.  We have a lot of web based foriegn  language
> >courses at UIUC and we have identified that speech users cannot
> >determine when to manually switch their synthesizer languages, even
> >when they know that there are more than one language on the resource.
> >
> >If changes in language are available modern screen readers will
> >automatically switch the lanaguge of the synthesizer.
> >
> >Proposed Change:
> >
> >Move this requirement to Success Criteria 1
> >
> >----------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to
> >move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working
> >group was to leave them in the current positions.
> >
> >Response from Jon Gunderson:
> >The working group response is very disappointing.  I believe it is
> >probably much easier for someone to guess the overall language of a
> >web resource than language changes within the web resources.  I cannot
> >understand any arguments on why language CHANGES are not critical for
> >accessibility especially for anyone using speech (Visual impairments
> >and learning disabilities).  I have seen students have to drop courses
> >at UIUC because language changes were not part of the content.  In the
> >era of on-line learning you will be allowing content with multiple
> >languages to comply at a Single-A level without their content being
> >usable by many people with disabilities.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >The working group spent much time considering 3.1.2 at a higher level.
> >However, the working group did not feel there was enough to move it to
> >level A and there are good reasons for not requiring it at level A.
> >SC 3.1.2 had many complicating factors with respect to what exactly is
> >a change of language in a passage.  A rather lengthy note was added to
> >clarify situations that are not to be considered a change of language.
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Comment 2: Conformance section is confusing
> >Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0049.html
> >(Issue ID: 1970)
> >----------------------------
> >Original Comment:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612141417.35612BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
> >(Issue ID: LC-762)
> >
> >Part of Item:
> >Comment Type: TE
> >Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> >
> >These requirement seems to deal with collections of web resources
> >(units).  I think that this should be stated that you are creating
> >some type of conformance for a collection of resources. It would make
> >it much clearer.  I think this should also be in the conformance
> >section.
> >
> >If a resource does not meet the requirements, it just doesn't meet the
> >requirements.
> >
> >Proposed Change:
> >
> >1. Move this requirement to conformance section
> >2. Clearly state you want people to be able to make conformance claims
> >on collections of resources.
> >
> >----------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >We have revised the conformance section significantly and have
> >clarified how claims for collections of versions can be made: 4.)
> >Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
> >criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
> >alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
> >derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
> >meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
> >alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
> >original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
> >pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
> >versions are required for each language offered.
> >
> >Response from Jon Gunderson:
> >I think the conformance section is confusing.  Suggesting a page that
> >is not accessible is now accessible because it references an
> >alternative page that is accessible is misleading about the page.  The
> >only thing that is accessible is the alternative page and that should
> >be the only thing that can be labeled as passing.  The linking page to
> >the alternative stands on its own accessibility merits.  This type of
> >conformance option also perpetuates the myths that accessibility means
> >creating something so different that alternative page is needed and
> >accessibility is a burden since it requires twice the work to create
> >duplicate pages.  This was a necessary requirement for WCAG 1.0, but I
> >think is out date for the world we live in now.
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >We no longer refer to a page as conformant if it has a conforming
> >alternative.  But we do allow pages with conforming alternate versions
> >within the scope of conformance since we do not know how to make some
> >content technologies directly accessible.
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Comment 3: add our titling requirement as a technique for creating
> >accessible titles
> >Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0050.html
> >(Issue ID: 1971)
> >----------------------------
> >Original Comment:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140004.F18FF66364@dolph.w3.org
> >(Issue ID: LC-838)
> >
> >Part of Item:
> >Comment Type: substantive
> >Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> >
> >I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1. If descriptions of an
> >image are SC1, then are not descriptions or titles of a web page of
> >equal importance? This should be merged with requirements of 2.4.5 and
> >that descriptions/titles should be \"unique\" for collections of a web
> >resources as part of the success criteria.
> >
> >See UIUC Web Accessibility Best Practices:
> >http://html.cita.uiuc.edu/nav/title.php
> >
> >
> >Proposed Change:
> >
> >I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1 and merged with the
> >requirements of 2.4.5.
> >
> >----------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.3 and moved it to level A.
> >
> >The success criterion does not require that titles be unique because
> >the working group is concerned that requiring uniqueness will lead to
> >titles that are not as descriptive and usable. It may be very
> >difficult to create titles that are descriptive, unique, and
> >reasonably short. For example, a Web page that generates titles
> >dynamically based on its content might need to include part of the
> >dynamic content in the title to ensure that it was unique.  We are
> >also concerned that authors may make titles unique mechanically, such
> >as by including a unique number in the title that is unrelated to the
> >content. For these reasons, although we encourage unique titles in the
> >techniques for this SC, we are not including uniqueness in the SC
> >itself.
> >
> >SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
> >and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
> >may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
> >the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
> >descriptive power.
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Comment 4:
> >
> >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140642.A792066364@dolph.w3.org
> >(Issue ID: LC-839)
> >
> >Part of Item:
> >Comment Type: substantive
> >Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> >
> >If descriptions of an image are SC1, then are not descriptions of a
> >web page titles and headings of equal importance?
> >
> >Proposed Change:
> >
> >Change to SC1.  Consider merging with requirement of SC 2.4.3.
> >
> >----------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >----------------------------
> >
> >SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
> >and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
> >may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
> >the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
> >descriptive power.
> >
> >Response from JRG:
> >Titling in our best practices in more than just the TITLE element.  It
> >includes matching the TITLE content with H1 content on a web page.
> >This provides a machine verifiable way for testing for unique titles.
> >While automated tools can be easily fooled, the web developer
> >obviously has to know they are doing it to get around this
> >requirement.  I think titling is just as important as text equivalents
> >for images.
> >
> >I request that you add out titling requirement as a technique for
> >creating accessible titles:
> >http://html.cita.uiuc.edu/nav/title.php
> >
> >Tools for testing titling using TITLE and H1 and other accessibility features:
> >
> >Firefox Accessibility Extension
> >http://firefox.cita.uiuc.edu
> >
> >Functional Accessibility Evaluator
> >http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Response from Working Group:
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >Thank you for you suggestion. We have added an advisory technique for
> >SC 2.4.2 (Web pages have descriptive titles) of "Using unique titles
> >for Web pages." This technique will complement the advisory technique
> >for SC 2.4.6 (Headings and labels are descriptive) of "Using unique
> >section headings in a Web page."  It is not always appropriate for
> >TITLE and H1 to contain exactly the same text. TITLE often contains
> >the web site name but H1 usually does not (e.g. because there's a logo
> >outside H1 that serves that purpose).
> >
> >Conformance to the Guidelines is based on the Web Page in question,
> >not the site. There are some cases when it would be very difficult to
> >require a unique Title for every page on a web site. There are also
> >many grey areas about what makes up a web site. Is a corporate site
> >that has divisions and servers in dozens of countries one web site or
> >many sub sites? Some sites have millions of pages. To require unique
> >Title for each page would be extremely difficult especially in cases
> >where there are different responsibility centres in different
> >countries governing different areas of a site.
> Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
> Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology (DRES)
>
> WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/
> WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 23:29:11 UTC