Comments on WCAG 2.0 WD, 17 May 2007
Comments on WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Eric Hansen comments on WCAG 2
EOWG new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May 2007 Working Draft
How does \"I accept this license agreement\" type operation conform
Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)
viewing size of non-text content without alternatives
\"non-text content\"
\"non-text content\"
\"large scale\"
\"keyboard interface\"
\"idioms\"
\"human language\"
\"Contrast ratio\" definition and user-selected colours
resizing of form controls
Handling non-conformance of one of many pages in a product
\'Description of the URI\' does not map well to a \'product\'
Requirement for \'7.) Full Pages\' may be too narrow
Editorial
Editorial
Readability is broken
Interface Design
What about non-visually evident?
An advisory on anti-aliased fonts.
A new Success Criterion regarding use of color.
Keep 2.4.4 as a Level-A Success Criterion.
Significant improvement over previous drafts.
Transcripts not given adequate relevance
Transcript = text allows no captions
Wording suggests that a link context is required
elevator safety code violations ---IHS
Definition of \"Mechanism\" needs clarification
Referencing User Agents and Assistive Technologies
Defintion of \"programmatically determined link context\" refers to \"sentence\".
\"Interruptions\" may warrant a higher priority
Respecting OS keyboard accessibility features
\"Optional components...\" meta-data reference, pt 2
\"Optional components...\" typo and awkward sentence
\"machine-readable metadata\" preferred...but do UAs support it?
\"Non-Interference\" \"No Keyboard Trap\" dependend on UA/plugin as well
Addition to \"Accessibility-Supported Technologies\"
IBM Comments to WCAG 2 May 17 Working Draft
\"all\" of the following requirements CAN\'T be met, as depends on chosen level
Addition to \"Creating your own list...\" section.
Addition to \"Creating your own list...\" section.
Awkward and incomplete wording
bullet 2, \"checked\", seems unnecessary
just \"in text\"?
reclassing it from AAA to A
mechanism, or should it be \"programmatically determined\", or both?
whole SC seems unnecessary
just \"users with disabilities\"?
the SC should be applicable even on a single page
in practice, difference between \"blink\" and \"flash\" still unclear, even with appendix
just \"users with disabilities\"?
2.1.1. trying to cover two separate issues in one go?
resized without AT (same issue as my comment to 1.4.4)
resized without AT
Awkwkard non-word \"turnon\"
just \"visually\" evident?
just \"people with disabilities\"?
just applicable to \"instructions\"?
Can CSS colour be classed as \"programmatically determined\"?
prerecorded or pre-recorded?
1.1. Non-text Content / Controls-Input
Rewording 1.1 slightly to include pure text, and a comma
\"Accessibility Supported\" awkward sentence
\"Accessibility Supported\" comma and small change
\"Programmatically Determined\" addition to last sentence
\"Programmatically Determined\" awkward sentence
\"Web Page\" definition and user agents, pt 2
\"Web Page\" definition and user agents
\"Web Page\" definition
Comma and \"but\" in \"Advisory Techniques\"
Apologetic whining in \"Sufficient Techniques\" explanation
Awkward wording for new technologies bit
Awkward wording on confomance level
AT heavy \"levels of conformance\" bullet points
Stray comma
Sound Volume Control
Stray comma and \"standard\"?
Accessible Technology
Intro to the four principles
only 9 pages long
Guidelines, not requirements?
Responsible for \"200%\" and 50%\"
How to measure dB(A) SPL and Tools
Rationale for \"200%\" and 50%?
Why \"18 point or 14 point bold\"?
What does \"accessibility support\" mean?
Why \"Documented lists\" needed?
about \"Accessibility Supported\"
Notes 1 and 2 on the Assistive Technology Definition
The presentation is unnecessarily difficult.
Use heading for different columns in web page layouts?
Let the user use her preferred format for input
Present more techiques on how improve texts
Change alternative number two \"Checked\"
Add video-clips to illustrate solutions
Replace term \"visually rendered\"
Addition of a related resource
Mention of the Microsoft Word Readability Formulas
Replace example 4
Human testers should always be persons with disabilities
Symbols illustrating texts can be ignored by assistive technology
Clearly identify supplemental content or alternate version
Include criterion 3.1.5 in levels A and AA
Reading level changed to primary education level
RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 3)
Prohibiting images of important text
This SC is at a level that will not be adopted by many sites β?? it is too important to leave at β??AAAβ??
The phrasing of this SC is not definitive enough
Time Limit for Access Control
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
Time Limit for Security
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
Guideline 2.2
Layout using CSS
Guideline 1.3
A, AA, AAA criteria
General
Time Limit for Security/Access Control
How to measure dB(A) SPL and Tools
Grounds for \"200%\"
Re: Stronger statement about accessibility for people with cognitive disability
Text resizing
Clarification on Conformance Requirements for Alternative Content
doing a little more for people with cognitive limitations
Success Criterion score
Increase SC for 3.3.4
3.1.4 SC should be AA
SC level for 3.1.3
SC 2.4.8 should be at higher level
contrast ratio SC level
Does HTML using pt or px meet this with today\'s user agents?
Stronger statement about accessibility for people with cognitive disability
Skip links are not required to be visible (G1)
Add definition of testability to Guidelines (Introduction & Glossary)
Not clear that it\'s ok to provide directions once for a site.
Which sc covers frame names?
Guideline does not mention the need for equivalent alternatives (only SC).
Should Icons be included in contrast requirements?
The parenthetical phrase is confusing
The relationship between labels and names is not clear enough.
Please Remove the \"Testability\" Requirement
Site listed in resources appears to have some issues
ddncofhbvk
mclawuoouc
Testing for everything is unworkable.
Does video with synchronized captions fit into 1.2?
Multimedia and Video confusion
Add Exception to 3.1.1
Should 2.4.9 be a AA requirement?
2.4.8 is not clearly differentiated from 2.4.4
2.1.1 and 2.1.2 don\'t seem to have a clear distinction
Why is Sign Language not required on non-multimedia
confussion with non-live audio/video
WCAG 2 reads well
comments and issues on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/
techniques document review
Testability
SC-958, 1218 not quite agree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
LC-1209 agree w/comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
Wording not explicit enough, and too similar to 2.4.4
Suggested additional qualification
Wording - \"easier\" (than what?)
Exceptions for single words and other classes of words
too vague
Testability is dramatically hurting the WCAG
teastability
Fwd: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Comment LC-1053
Remove testability requirements
Comment LC-1052
Comment LC-1051
SC 1.1.1 and 2.4 6 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
Automatic testing
Level of priority
H1-H6, Leval A or AAA?
better but still dommageable concept
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
common failure and Sufficient Techniques matching
more ergonomic problem than accessibility problem
testability
Use of wmode
Invalide test procedure
Use alternative versions only when necessary
Limts on pronunciations
Headings as AA
Use Headings as well as make them meaningful
lang in attribut
direct context or DOM context
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
Limits on user controlled timed events
wrong sucess criteria association
wrong sucess criteria association
Comment LC-1047
Comment LC-1044
LC-1043
Comment LC-1042
Comment LC-1041
Comment LC-1040
Comment LC-1039
Comment LC-1038
Comment LC-1037
RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 8)
Comment LC-1034
\"Authoring tools\" section has been removed
Definition of \"Technology\" should be changed to allow synchronization with AUWG\'s definition of \"content type\"
Frame technique promote old fashion web
UA bug on object
Good job done
Contents ordering is odd
Inconsistent treatment of null content (2)
Inconsistent treatment of null content
Confusing linkage between documents
Clarify 2.4.4 by adding \"taken together\" or \"together with\"
Comment LC-1033
Comment LC-1032
Comment LC-1031
Comment LC-1030
Comment LC-1029
Comment LC-1028
Comment LC-1027
Comment LC-1026
Comment LC-1024
Comment LC-1022
Comment LC-1023
Please choose your side, UA bug or not ?
Comment LC-1021
Comment LC-1020
RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 8)
Contrast value and background problem
Use of color information for contextual distinction
missing information on common failures
contextual caption and summary
level of this success criterion
contextual alternative
LC-1200, 1203, 1204, 1206 disagree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-979 respectfully disagree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
a few more A-OK dispositions [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1214 accept with comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1213 accept w/comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
disagree LC-1202 (with how to salvage...) [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
LC-1201 accept w/fresh comment [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
disagree LC-1196 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
disagree LC-1195 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
LC-978 OK w/comment [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft...]
Re: Reminder -- request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Definition of the wider range of people
Example in the intent for change of context is not a change of context
Adding \"at least\" to second sentances of 1.4.3 & 1.4.5
Fwd: Fwd: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
A-OK dispositions [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (n of 4)]
Links give context - CORRECTION
Fwd: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
Overview content tweak
Links give context
Ban hiding link text
Ban hiding link text
Page title as context
1.4.3 & 1.4.5 Contrast ratio of disabled elements
Re: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07
- Re: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07
- RE: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07
- Re: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07
LC-1302 NOT SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC 1307 NOT SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1320 NEW PROBLEM Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1308 SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1309 SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
Lack of attention to the deaf people needs.
Consider this technique for 2.4.1
SC 2.4.1: use of term "block of content"
Techniques for WCAG 2: F42
Techniques for WCAG 2: F42
Trying to help readability
user agent detection
Not clear whether web pages should use W3C technologies
Should prohibit \"relies upon scripting\"
Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (Issue ID: LC-712)
No provision for link highlighting
SCR21: Using functions of the Document Object Model (DOM) to add content to a page
Clarification of Text, image of text, and visually randered text
WCAG-WG's response to comments
Testing comment form (please ignore)
Comments on WCAG 2.0 Draft of May 2007
Eric Hansen reaction to WCAG 2.0 WG responses to Eric's comments on the 2006 working draft
Fwd: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 3 and 4
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 2
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 1
comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 - response to WG
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 5: H56 source text
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 4: H56 incorrect link target
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 3: H56 link to bidi primer
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 2: H34 use of entities
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 1: H34 example source direction
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: rp doesn't provide information
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Ruby resources
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: H62 Ex4 descn
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Commonness of ruby
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: pr tags missing
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Description of ruby positions
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 in H58 tests
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Tests ignore xml:lang
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Language tagging link
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: XML 1.01
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: je ne sais quoi
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in H58 title
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 reference in tests
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in tests
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Bidi links
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Direction of text
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 links
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Tutorial link
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: head missing
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: XHTML 1.0
RE: [WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in H57 title
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Primary natural language
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Repeated Japanese text
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Non-English resources please
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Missing xml:lang
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Lang value length
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: No pointer to i18n language decl doc
RE: [UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Liam's resources
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Content in two languages
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: dc:lang
RE: [WCAG2] i18n comment: Natural languages
Re: [WCAG2] i18n comment 2: Primary natural language
Re: [WCAG2] i18n comment: Provide simpler text
comment on responses to comments on WCAG 2.0 27 April 2006 draft
Thanks for the reply
Re: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
- Re: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
- Re: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
- Re: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006