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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:28:30 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171628m3f6faed1i85ad80fd9ba96d92@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bruno von Niman" <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Bruno von Niman ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the
interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.

This message contains the comments you submitted and the 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 updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/.

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly
archived.

We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review.

Thank you,

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:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-683)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

(European) cultural diversity issues should be
addressed in more detail and be included as
conformance criteria (e.g. image texts)

Proposed Change:

WCAG 2.0 should provide at least cross-references to
other work addressing multicultural issues related to
accessibility, more than Japanese and Chinese

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

Many of the suggestions you provide appear to be cultural
accommodations and the accessibility implications are not always
clear. We have adapted some of your suggestions as advisory techniques
for Guideline 3.1 and have added the following placeholder to How to
Meet Guideline 3.1:

Setting expectations about auto-generated or user-contributed content
(future link)

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-684)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Learning disabilities and cognitive limitations are not
addressed! This may be perceived as usability issues
but we believe the consumer should not have to
know the difference between usability and accessibi-
lity! Older consumers, a numerous part of the EU
population, will face severe problems!

Proposed Change:

Should be covered by the WCAG 2.0 documents.
Otherwise, the opposite must be explicitely claimed,
to avoid misunderstandings.
Another option would be to continue work on a set of
extension guidelines to address these needs.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have added language to the Introduction, the Conformance section,
and the Quick Reference to highlight the fact that WCAG 2 only
addresses some of the needs of people with cognitive, learning, and
language disabilities, and to call out the need for more research in
this area. WAI is exploring ways in which to support and encourage
work in this important area.

We have added some best practices for cognitive, learning, and
language disabilities as advisory techniques, and we have proposed 3
new success criteria in this area.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-685)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Accessibility of the mobile Web should be covered
better

Proposed Change:

Mobile Web accessibility issues should be more
detailed and the cross-referencing with the Mobile
Web Best Practices made more detailed

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We are considering adding a section in Understanding WCAG 2.0 that
would cover "other benefits". If we do we will include the benefits
and similarities with Mobile Web in this section. There has been some
discussion however, that we should not include broader benefits in the
documents and that we should stick just to the accessibility issues.
The "other benefits section" would allow us to keep the focus on
disability while acknowledging the broader implications. Since this
work would not affect the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines document, we have
postponed making this decision.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-686)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Training and educational packages should be
developed for designers and developers

Proposed Change:

Should be developed and cover the typical segments
of designer groups

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

This is outside the scope (charter) of the WCAG working group. However
we are working with the Education and Outreach (EO) working group that
is developing such materials."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-687)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

We would like to see WCAG 2.0 applied to as many
non-public (or "commercial") sites as possible

Proposed Change:

A starter package should be developed,
addressing basic accessibility issues

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

This is outside the scope (charter) of the WCAG working group.
However, we are working with the Education and Outreach (EO) working
group that is developing application notes.  They are also planning on
doing one on the basics for elementary web designers, and a one page
Quick Tips like they did with WCAG 1.0.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-689)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

We would like to see WCAG 2.0 applied to as many
non-public (or "commercial") sites as possible

Proposed Change:

The use of language and terminoology should be
simple and as free of technical jargong as possible

The navigation between the various documents
should be simplified (now far too complex)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have reworked the entire document to make it shorter and easier to
read. This includes:
- Shortening the introduction
- Moving much of the discussion out of the guidelines and puttin it in
the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document
- Shortening the conformance section and moving it after the guidelines
- Writing simpler guidelines
- Removing as many technical terms (jargon) as possible, replacing
them with simpler language or their definitions
- Removing the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions
that pointed to other definitions)
- Moving information about mapping between WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 to a
separate support document (so it can be updated more easily)
- Creating a Quick Reference documents that has just the Guidelines,
success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria.
- Trying to word things in manners that are more understandable to
different levels of Web expertise
- Adding short names/handles on each success criterion to make them
easier to find and compare etc.
- Simplifying the conformance section
- Using plainer language wherever possible (e.g.  use "Web page"
instead of "Web Unit")
- Eliminating several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.)
- Making the whole document much shorter.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-691)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Triple-A conformance requires only conformance to a
"portion of level 3 success criteria". In practice, this is
set to 50%.

Proposed Change:

This may be more than OK for Web sites developed
for commercial purposes (e.g. by small companies)
but should require more from e.g. public sites, where
competence and resources are less of an issue

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have changed the definition of Level AAA conformance so that all
Level AAA Success Criteria that apply to the content types used must
be satisfied.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-692)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

All conformance criteria are based on technical
terms. Is this usable by e.g public procurers?
Testable conformance criteria should be added.

Proposed Change:

A testing methodology should be developed by W3C
with strict requirements and interpretations, in order
to allow for trustworthy and transparent conformance
declarations. Non compliance with conformance
claims trigger a loss of consumer confidence.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The Conformance section of the guidelines has been revised and the new
conformance section includes testable Conformance Criteria.  All WCAG
2.0 success criteria are testable and WCAG 2.0 defines accessibility
guidelines (goals) and success criteria (testable criteria for
conformance at different levels of accessibility).

All of the sufficient techniques include test procedures. Developing a
program for testing sites is beyond the scope and resources of the
WCAG working group.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-693)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

It is unclear if and how WCAG 2.0 applies to sites
accessed in off-line mode (e.g. local, synchronized
Web sites)

Proposed Change:

Should be covered by adding at least a sentence in
the introductory chapters or, if possible, more
details.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

WCAG 2.0 applies to Web content, and sites accessed in off-line mode
are not on the Web. While there is clearly a lot of overlap in the
accessibility issues in these two environments, this is outside the
charter of the group. It is not clear what you mean by
"local-synchronized site" If the local site is a mirror of an on-line
site, then the local (off-line) site would be out of scope but the
on-line site would be within scope and should meet WCAG.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-694)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

A Table of Content should be added to all documents
to simplify THE navigation of printed documents

Proposed Change:

The question is how to add it for print-outs, supporting
page numbers

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

 When the guidelines are complete, a print version (PostScript and
PDF) will be available. This version will include a printable table of
contents and references to printed page numbers.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-696)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

ANEC would like to encourage the early translation of
the WCAG 2.0 documents to all official EU languages

Proposed Change:

The EC and their Translation services could be
approached and the W3C translation process, now
well in place, applied?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

A number of unofficial translations have already been created for
working drafts of WCAG 2.0 and are available on the working group's
homepage at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#translations. The W3C actively
encourages individuals and organizations to participate in the process
of creating translations.

Note: for those interested in creating translations, please see the
W3C Translations page at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/.
WCAG 2.0 translations are not currently indexed at this location.
However, as the document matures we expect to include our translations
in this location resource.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAKev77S3u3lDobAg9fna/57CgAAAEAAAAC1A6KEOHA1MkFG3am/MOfcBAAAAAA==@vonniman.com
(Issue ID: LC-697)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

The comment provision form is not usable- see
this sheet

Proposed Change:

The Excel sheet needs considerable improvements
(e.g. text string input limitations)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

Yes, Excel does give error messages if you try to type too much into a
cell.  It will take much more than it says it will.  For those with
long comments, we provided several methods for commenting.  We also
changed the instructions to make it clearer that comments can be sent
in using the on line form, sheets or by sending an open email to the
public comments list.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:28:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:07 UTC