comments and issues on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/

comments and issues on  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/
 
Issue 1:  from the introduction (about learning disabilities)
Note this comment comes from many people who voiced the formal objection to
the previous version
 
quote: "Although some of the accessibility issues of people with cognitive,
language, and learning disabilities are addressed by WCAG 2.0, either
directly or through assistive technologies, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines do not
address many areas of need for people with these disabilities. There is a
need for more research and development in this important area."
 
recommendation:
We must remove the sentence  "There is a need for more research and
development in this important area" . It will result in less accessible
content for many people.
 
To understand why I feel that is crucial please review my assumptions
Assumption 1:  There are organisations that have guidelines that offer more
support for people with learning disabilities then WCAG 2.0 
Assumption 2: There are web authors that wish to make content, or at least
part of the content (such as emergency information) accessible to as many
people as they possibly can. There are sites that want to include people
with leaning and cognitive disabilities.  
Assumption 3: Some of the criteria that have been proven to help
accessibility for people with learning disabilities and are recommended in
other specifications have been excluded from WCAG because of issues such as
adoptability, undue burden , widely applicable etc. These criteria are  not
all excluded because of a lack of research. These criteria are often
reliable.
 
If a web author who very much wants to accommodate people with severe
learning disabilities, reads the sentences " the WCAG 2.guidelines do not
address many areas of need for people with these disabilities." They will
know there is more to do. However, if they then read " There is a need for
more research and development in this important area." They will assume that
WCAG is the best option right now for including people with learning
disabilities.  The implication is that the only reason that WCAG does not
address many areas of need for people with these disabilities is because the
research is inadequate. Other guidelines will seem less credible.
 
 
The result of this sentence is that the author who would like to accommodate
people with cognitive disabilities will do a worse job. 
 
(All accessibility will benefit form more research, placing the sentence
hear, misrepresents the situation. )
 
 
Issue 2:  from  1.4.3 and 1.4.5 (about low contrast images)
quote "   <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#textdef> Text (and
images of text) have a
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#contrast-ratiodef> contrast
ratio of ...." 
 
I recommend changing the text to "
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#textdef> Text (and images of
text) are available with a
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#contrast-ratiodef> contrast
ratio of ...." 
 
In other words the images may be Swapped for high contrast versions. This
enables the content provider to provide accessibility when required and
maintain the look and feel of their graphics.
 
 
Issue 3:  from   2.2.1 (about timed text)
 
Quote " 
*	
Adjust: the user is allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it
over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default
setting; or

*	
Extend: the user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds
to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "hit any key"),
and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or

"

I am uncomfortable with these options. At least these options could be
limited to " when there is no other option"  

I am often having page information reset for me - at huge loss of data and
time. sometimes the problem is I have got distracted or am doing something
else for a short time and boom - hours of work gone. How can you be sure
that the user knows to hit the key?

 

This kind of thing makes me which for testing centric guidelines - oh well

 

Issue 4:  From 3.3.3 and 3.3.6  - about error preventions  

quote  " 3.3.3 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For forms that
cause  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#legalcommitmentsdef>
legal commitments or financial transactions to occur,

3.3.6 Error Prevention (All): For forms that require the user to submit
information"

I recommend moving 3.3.3 to conformance  level 1 and 3.3.6 to conformance
level two - making both of them one conformance  level higher then they are
now

 My reason is as follows: 

If a person claims accessibility at any level that at least you should no
that legal commitments will not be incurred without the disabled  user being
aware of it. 

The fear and experiences of bad transactions and getting  your data messed
up by hard to use forms is a common experience and a barrier to the world
and convenience of internet use for many disabled uses. Many people with
disabilities are afraid of using  internet services because of this,. Yet
often people with disabilities need the online alternative the most. They
need to be able to use them without fear. 

Issue 5:  From  the end sections

Quote"  Non support: The content continues to meet the conformance
requirements when the (non accessibility-supported) technology is turned on,
turned off, or is not supported by a user agent." 

I found this very unclear - what does this mean? 

 

Issue 5:  from  the conformance claim sections at the end

quote "


Optional components of a conformance claim

*	
Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success
criteria to enhance accessibility.

"
 
Can we add hear  "Information about the cognitive abilities are required to
use the page such as visual memory, auditory memory, language abilities,
reading level , etc"
 
Can we add  "what advisory techniques were used " ?
Can we add  "Information about any additional protocols used to aid access
for people with cognitive and learning disabilities " 
 
 
 
Issue 6 : missing section in guideline 3
 
Take the following inaccessible sentence "please see section 2.3 56 to test
conformance against technique 45.3.m" ?
 

*	Is the term "2.3.56" considered  jargon or acronyms that it needs an
explanation? So far I can not find a  success criteria that prohibit this
sentence.
*	Further,  if it is considered  jargon and  a glossary of jargon is
provided - would that conform?
*	Imagine someone without a visual or auditory short term memory (you
can simulate that by imaging the numbers were symbols that all look a bit
alike)  - Will a glossary help?   (answered:  it will not )

 
Useful labels needed to be used in place of the 3,2,4.28d.m stuff
 

All the best

 
Lisa Seeman
 
lisa@ubaccess.com
www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/> 
Confidential