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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 2)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171638x1fee8740h979b63c8b261ffa1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 15:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031108.30032DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1004)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The mouse-over highlighting color adds confusion



Proposed Change:

EOWG suggests removing it.

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

Agree.  It has been removed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031328.228B2DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1005)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The \"L1\" is unclear.


Proposed Change:

Change \'L1\' to \'Level 1\' etc, and add a heading of \'Level\' to
the first column

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

We have added a heading of "Level" to the first column as proposed and
have replaced L1, L2, L3 with the appropriate level.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031552.326C5DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1006)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Some readers may not realize that you can save the checklist and add
comments to the fourth column as a report.


Proposed Change:

In the 'blurb' explaining what the checklist is for, explain that it
is intended that you can save the document and add comments to the
fourth column as a report.
Alternatively, provide a simpler table and also a downloadable (RTF)
document for evaluation reporting and annotation purposes.

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

The checklist has been removed form the WCAG document itself.  At this
point there are no longer any checklists, just the Quick Reference.
Since you and the EO working group will be involved in the creation of
Checklists in the future we are forwarding your comment back to EO for
use in that work.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623033122.A9E7E33201@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1007)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

EOWG approved the following comments prepared by Shawn Henry.
Background first, on distribution of material among WCAG 2.0 and
supporting documents:

1. WCAG 2.0: Purpose is a stable reference for policies, etc. Keep it
as simple and succinct as possible. Clearly point to other documents
for important information, such as more info on baseline (which is
done in current draft). Leave out any historical info and such (take
out some of what is there now).

2. Checklist: Purpose is quick list for people who already know WCAG
2.0 and just need to check off that they're remembering everything
when doing an evaluation, for example. [Other common uses?] (Note that
it's *not* useful as an overview for newbies.)

3. "Understanding" [or other title]: Purpose is *the* document that
most people will use most of the time. Note that since all the
guidelines and success criteria are in here I think few people will
even look at /TR/WCAG20. [Do you agree?]
* @@

4. Techniques: Purpose is details for implementing. Assume developers
are the only target audience. [correct?]

5. Overview (w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20): Purpose is simple, friendly,
directive front door to WCAG 2.0 docs. I think almost all references
to WCAG 2.0 (for example, links in other WAI Resources, slides, and
such) should point to this overview.

6. [About Baselines]: Eliminate this document. Put the pertinent
information about baselines in "Understanding", as there's no reason
to send people to yet another document for this information. The
non-pertinent info that's there now could go in 7 below.
7. [something like Background, or WG Notes, or History, or QA or"]:
Purpose is to communicate reasons why things were done, address some
concerns or issues, and such. For example, move to here most of the
"Background" section from About Baselines, "Why wasn't UAAG used as
baseline?", and why 2.0 Levels different from 1.0 Priorities
(currently in WCAG20 Conformance).

8. [Application Notes] Purpose is to help developers working on a
specific thing, such as images, links, forms, data tables. (Brief
description is under http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php#related)
Note that I think these should cover just the basics, and point back
to "Understanding" & "Techniques" for the more complex issues.

9. [Plain-Language Version  WCAG 2.0 "101"  WCAG 2.0 "for Dummies"
WCAG 2.0 Intent] Purpose is for the average person to be able to
understand the basics of WCAG 2.0. I imagine taking each guideline and
success criteria and providing it in an understandable way. Perhaps
this is mostly pulling out the information from the "Intent" section
of "Understanding". Note that this is problematic as it would have to
be carefully and clearly positioned, since it would *not* cover all
the issues.

10. [Quick Tips] Purpose is something short that touches on the basics
to help people get started on accessibility " to fit on a
business-card-sized handout.

Proposed Change:
The main change from what is in the current WCAG 2.0 documents and
above is moving out of the main /TR/WCAG20 document Comparison with
WCAG 1.0, explanatory examples, and other details. In addition to
simplifying the normative doc, this puts the explanatory information
where it can be updated to reflect changes over time as necessary. It
also limits the need for repetition across documents (e.g., now some
information in /TR/WCAG20 Conformance is repeated in About Baselines,
and not at all in Understanding). I think it also would ensure that
people don't miss important information. (Since it becomes clear that
the /TR/WCAG20 only contains the standards, and all other info is in
Understanding.)

Based on above, I propose moving the following sections out of
/TR/WCAG20 Conformance:

I. Move into a new "Baselines" section of "Understanding":
a. Under Who sets baselines?:
"
...
There are several reasons for this. First, what is appropriate in a
baseline may differ for different environments. For example, in the
case of content that will be viewed only by employees of a particular
company, it may be possible to assume that user agents support more
advanced technologies if the company provides the necessary user
agents (including assistive technology) to all employees. For public
Websites, however, a more conservative level of technology may be all
that can be reasonably assumed. Baselines may also vary by
jurisdiction. Finally, the level of technology that can be assumed to
be supported by accessible user agents will certainly change over
time.

Some examples of baselines:

Example 1: A government site that provides information to the public.
A government agency publishes information intended for the general
public. The specified baseline includes only technologies that have
been widely supported by more than one accessible and affordable user
agent for more than one release. The government periodically changes
the baseline it requires for developers of public sites to reflect the
increasing ability of affordable user agents (including assistive
technology) to work with newer technologies.

Example 2: A particular government provides high level accessible user
agents to all citizens who need them. A government provides all
citizens with user agents that support newer technologies. The
government is thus able to specify a baseline that includes these
newer technologies for all of its Websites for its citizens since the
government can assume its citizens' user agents can handle the
technologies.

Example 3: A private intranet. An organization (public or private)
provides its employees with the information technology tools they need
to do their jobs. The baseline for intranet sites used only by
employees includes newer technologies that are supported only by the
user agent that the organization provides for its employees. Because
the company controls the user agents that will view its internal
content, the author has a very accurate knowledge of the technologies
that those user agents (including assistive technologies) support.

Note: In the examples above, the baseline is not specified in terms of
specific user agents but rather in terms of the Web content
technologies that are supported and enabled in those user agents
(including assistive technologies).
"

b. All of Examples of conformance claims:
"
Examples of conformance claims

Example 1: On 23 March 2005, http://www.wondercall.example.com
conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level A. The baseline for this
claim is XHTML 1.0. The specification that this content "relies upon"
is: HTML 4.01. The specifications that this content "uses but does not
rely on" are: CSS2, and gif. This content was tested using the
following user agents and assistive technologies: Firefox 1.5 on
Windows 2000 SP4 with Jaws 7.0, Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP 2 with
Jaws 7.0, IE 6.0 on Windows 2000 SP4 with Jaws 4.51, IE 6.0 on Windows
2000 SP4 with Jaws 7.0, and Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP2 with Jaws
7.0, Safari 2.0 with OS X 10.4.

Example 2: On 5 May 2006, "G7: An Introduction"
http://telcor.example.com/nav/G7/intro.html conforms to W3C's WCAG
2.0. Conformance Level Double-A. The following additional success
criteria have also been met: 1.1.2, 1.2.5, and 1.4.3. The baseline for
this claim is UDBaseline#1-2006 at
http://UDLabs.org/Baseline#1-2006.html. The specification that this
content "relies upon" is: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), and Real Video. The
specifications that this content "uses but does not rely on" are:
JavaScript 1.2, CSS2.

Example 3: On 21 June 2007, http://example.com/nav and
http://example.com/docs conform to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance
Triple-A. The baseline is ISA-Baseline#2-2007 at
http://ISA.example.gov/Baselines/BL2-2007. The specifications that
this content "relies upon" are: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), CSS2, JavaScript
1.2, jpeg, png. " The technologies this content has been tested with
can be found at http://example.com/docs/WCAG20/test/technologies.html.

"
c. All of Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0:

"
Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 builds upon WCAG 1.0 and reflects
feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working to
ensure that organizations and individuals who are currently using WCAG
1.0 (which remains stable and normative at this time) will be able to
smoothly transition to WCAG 2.0. For more information about the
similarities and differences between WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG 2.0
Guidelines and success criteria, please refer to the (draft) Mapping
between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

Authors whose content currently conforms to WCAG 1.0 may wish to
capitalize on past accessibility efforts when making the transition to
WCAG 2.0. A qualified conformance statement could allow them this
flexibility. For example, a conformance claim might include the
following statement: "Materials with creation or modification dates
before 31 December 2006 conform to WCAG 1.0. Materials with creation
or modification dates after 31 December 2006 conform to WCAG 2.0."

"
II. Move to Document #7 [Background, or WG Notes, or History, or Q&A] above:

"This method of grouping success criteria differs in important ways
from the approach taken in WCAG 1.0. Each checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was
assigned a "priority" according to its impact on accessibility. Thus,
Priority 3 checkpoints appeared to be less important than Priority 1
checkpoints. The WCAG Working Group now believes that all success
criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system
of checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by
success criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above. Note
that even conformance to all three levels will not make Web content
accessible to all people."

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

These are excellent suggestions.   Below is a partial list of the
actions taken to address these, and a couple of things that we have
not addressed.

#9 - a simple version.   We have a draft but do not want to confuse
people by releasing it at this time.  Once the main document is out we
want to work with EO to complete this.

#10  Quick Tips.   EO did a great job of this last time. We would like
to help you to do this rather than do one ourselves.   We think this
would be good to do in conjunction with the  SIMPLE version above.

The 12 guidelines are a good starting point.

 We have reworked the entire document to make it shorter and easier to
read and understand with different levels of expertise.  This includes

Easier language to understand
- Wrote simpler guidelines
- Removed as many technical terms (jargon) as possible replacing them
with plainer language or, where possible, their definitions
- Eliminated several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.)
- Removed the term Baseline and replaced it with "web technologies
that are accessibility supported" and then defined what it means to be
accessibility supported.
- Removed the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions
that pointed to other definitions)
- Tried to word things in manners that are more understandable to
different levels of Web expertise
- Added short names/handles on each success criterion to make them
easier to find and compare etc.
- Simplified the conformance

Shortening the document overall
- Shortened the introduction
- Moved much of the discussion out of the guidelines and put it in the
Understanding WCAG 2.0 document
- Shortened the conformance section and moved it after the guidelines
- Moved mapping from WCAG 1 to a separate support document (so it can
be updated more easily)

Creating a Quick Practitioner-oriented Summary / Checklist-like document
- Created a Quick Reference document that has just the Guidelines,
success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 19:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034120.985C247BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1008)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The \"Quick Table of Contents\" at the start of the introduction
section is confusing; it\'s unclear whether this is for the section or
for the whole document.


Proposed Change:

Clarify that the intro section is part of a set of pages. Please see
detailed comment and suggestions on re-wording at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0109.html

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

We have removed the multi-part version of the guidelines, so the
"Quick Table of Contents" is no longer present. However, we will take
these recommendations into consideration as we develop other views of
the WCAG 2.0 supporting materials.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 20:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034355.22F2C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1009)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The confusion between the Intro page & the whole WCAG 2.0 continues in
the \"Related Documents\" subsection



Proposed Change:
Clarify there that \"this document\" refers to the whole set of WCAG
2.0 pages. E.g., these are the things w/in WCAG 2.0, and then these
are the things outside of WCAG 2.0 (or the WCAG 2.0 TR doc)

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

We have completely revised this section of the Introduction and
believe that this issue has been addressed.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 21:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034521.475D847BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1010)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The amount of jargon in the introduction makes it less helpful than
possible as introductory material; for instance, "conformance",
"success criteria", "how to meet links",  "intent",
"sufficient techniques", "baseline assumptions."


Proposed Change:

Copyedit for increased use of plain English explanations; and/or
introduce the jargon later in the introduction.

----------------------------
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 22:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034741.C9E7647BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1012)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The fourth bulleted item (\"How to meet\" links to information on
intent..\") is hard to parse

Proposed Change:

Re-word the fourth bulleted item for readability, for instance \"Each
success criteria contains links to how to meet that criteria\"

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

We have revised this item to read as follows:
"How to Meet" links to information about how to meet each success
criterion, including a description of the intent of the success
criterion, sufficient techniques for meeting it, examples, and
benefits."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 23:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623035437.DCE6447BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1013)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The penultimate paragraph (\"Several success criteria require...\") is
difficult to understand and contains more detail than seems necessary
or appropriate for an introduction.




Proposed Change:

Copyedit to clarify and simplify.

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

We have rewritten the paragraph to be simpler and we have removed the
examples of transformations that could be performed by user agents.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 24:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623043917.B202DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1016)

Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

reposting the comment at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0225.html
due to incorrect paste of comment.

(Helpful detail in \"Understanding WCAG 2.0.\" EOWG sends its compliments)

Unclear purpose of document.



Proposed Change:



The Introduction needs an opening statement along the lines of \"this
is not an introductory document - it is a detailed description of the
guidelines and their success criteria\" and adds a pointer to the
\"Overview\"
document for people requiring a simple introduction.

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

Thank you. We have added the following paragraph to the Introduction.

WCAG 2.0 itself is a technical standard designed primarily for Web
developers and designers, authoring tool developers, evaluation tool
developers, and others who need a technical standard for Web
accessibility. Due to the technical and technology-independent nature
of the guidelines and success criteria, and because they say what
needs to be done rather than how to do it, it may sometimes be
difficult to use the guidelines or success criteria for specific
advice for a particular technology (e.g. HTML, XHTML, JavaScript
etc)."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 25:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044024.952B7BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1017)

Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The title of \"Understanding WCAG 2.0\" continues to be a concern for
EOWG, because of several possible misinterpretations.


Proposed Change:

EOWG recommends adding an exlanatory subheading to the document.
Suggestions include:
   a. Your guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
   b. A guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
   c. A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
   d. The authoritative, encyclopaedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
   e. A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0
   f. A guide to understanding and using WCAG 2.0

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

We have added a subheading that reads, "A guide to understanding and
implementing WCAG 2.0."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 26:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044126.B0D75BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1018)

Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

 For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word
summary, rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as
\"shortname\".



Proposed Change:

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

We have included short handles in the draft to make the success
criterion easier to reference.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 27:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044216.4EC33BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1019)

Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):



Proposed Change:

Please add explanations of the four principles to the Understanding document.

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

We have added a section to Understanding WCAG 2.0 titled,
"Understanding the Four Principles of Accessibility." which includes
additional explanation.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:38:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:21 GMT