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

comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 - response to WG

From: Andrew Arch <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:15:57 +1000
Message-ID: <A921AF4A5FC01245A8D846D004B61B3603AA70E4@kooxch01.visionaustralia.org>
To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Cc: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Hello Loretta and Working Group,


Thanks for all the work on the new draft, on the whole I think is much


With respect to my comments on the April 2006 draft and your responses,
I am generally satisfied. In particular:

Comments 1 - 14 = satisfied with response

Comment 15 - your response was missing from the email, please resend

Comments 16 - 21 = satisfied

Comment 22 = satisfied WRT SC1.2.2; my original comments still stand WRT
SC 1.2.1

Comment 23 = satisfied

Comment 24 = undecided, I will need to investigate the revised
luminosity algorithm further before commenting

Comment 25 = partially satisfied; however, by leaving SC1.4.3 at "AA",
we still allow site with blue on green, or grey on blue, or yellow on
white, to pass at "A" while being unreadable for many many people. Also,
SC1.4.4 seem to say that current IE uses will not be able to resize the
text easily (view text size > larger/smaller) if a site just meets "A".

Comment 26 = satisfied

Comment 27 = satisfied if SC2.2.1 includes some mention of auto-redirect

Comments 28 - 33 = satisfied

Comment 34 = not satisfied, please provide reasoning for retaining as
per previous draft. My comment is still valid.

Comment 35 = satisfied (just)

Comments 36 - 38 = satisfied

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 1.5) = unsatisfied. Current user agents do not
display the area alt text when the image is not display. Also, for
people with image processing difficulty, the image map may not be
comprehensible, while a text list might be. Furthermore, image-maps
pixelate for screen magnifier users - text-based lists are easy to
magnify well/smoothly.

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 3.4) = satisfied

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 5.5) = satisfied

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 10.5) = unsatisfied with just an advisory
technique; original comment still stands

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 13.6) = unsatisfied with just an advisory
technique. Is this because it is not 'testable'?

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 14.1) = unsatisfied, but I might just have to

Comment 39 (WCAG 1.0 - 14.3) = satisfied


I may have additional comments on the new draft that will be forwarded


Thanks again for all the hard work.  Andrew


Dr Andrew Arch

Manager Online Accessibility Consulting

Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions

Ph. +61 (0)3 9864 9282; Mob: 0438 755 565



ABN: 67 108 391 831; ACN: 108 391 831

Vision Australia is a living partnership between people who are blind,
vision impaired or sighted. We are united by our vision that in the
future people with blindness or vision impairment in Australia will
access and fully participate in every part of life they choose.

This email (including its attachments) is confidential and may contain
legally privileged material or personal information. If you are not a
named addressee you must not use, disclose, copy, disseminate or print
the email or any information in it. If you have received this email in
error please notify us immediately and delete the email and any copies.

Vision Australia is not responsible for any changes made to a document
other than those made by Vision Australia or for the effect of the
changes to the document's meaning. Vision Australia accepts no liability
for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses,
interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.



<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed 3361 Junk messages and set aside
4894 Later for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  www.ellaforspam.com	
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 12:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC