W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2007

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:28:45 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0712111528w7161cb81p45d781d190d25b7b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:24 GMT