- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:05:13 -0700
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Comment 10: Comma and "but" in "Advisory Techniques" Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0336.html (Issue ID: 2191) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under "Advisory Techniques", 1st para: "...that may enhance accessibility that did not qualify..." Proposed Change: "...that may enhance accessibility, but did not qualify..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. This section has been edited and this phrase is no longer there. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 11: "Web Page" definition Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0337.html (Issue ID: 2192) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under "Web Page", 2nd para: "...off of the shelves around them into a visual shopping cart..." Proposed Change: "...off of the shelves around them and into a visual shopping cart..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have rewritten this example and removed this error. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 12: "Web Page" definition and user agents Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0338.html (Issue ID: 2193) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under "Web Page", 2nd para: "If assistive technologies cannot do this..." Proposed Change: "If *user agents* cannot do this..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- AT are examples of user agents, and the critical test is whether AT can. We know of no examples where the information is available to AT but not to other user agents. If user agents can, but AT cannot, then it would not be Accessibility supported. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 13: "Web Page" definition and user agents, pt 2 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0339.html (Issue ID: 2194) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under "Web Page", 2nd para: "This lets user agents and assistive technologies..." Should AT be considered a subgroup of user agents? Proposed Change: "This lets user agents (including assistive technologies)..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you, we have updated this phrase to read, "This lets user agents, including assistive technologies, ..." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 14: "Programmatically Determined" awkward sentence Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0340.html (Issue ID: 2195) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The majority of the 2nd para of "Programmatically Determined" seems awkward. "This is important because of the continually ... may very well become accessible in the future." Also, it's more about the *potential* for being used by AT, and doesn't express whether or not AT actually does support it in practice (that's for authors to check from known lists of features supported by AT). Proposed Change: "The term determines if content has the *potential* to be recognised and used by user agents / assistive technologies. However, it does not determine whether or not current user agents / AT do actually support and expose this type of content in practice." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- his section has been rewritten and part of what you were concerned with is no longer there. With regard to "potential", accessiblity supported means more than content technologies have the potential to be supported. They must in fact have AT support. See the definition of accessibility supported in the conformance section. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 15: "Programmatically Determined" addition to last sentence Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0341.html (Issue ID: 2196) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "...list those techniques and technologies that meet the requirements over time." Proposed Change: "...list those techniques and technologies that meet the requirements over time, based on known user agent / assistive technology implementations." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have rewritten the introduction and this phrasing is no longer present. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 16: "Accessibility Supported" comma and small change Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0342.html (Issue ID: 2197) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- 1st para: "it is essential that the technologies work... criterion that requires it to be "programmatically determind" for example, it would..." Proposed Change: "it is essential that *these* technologies work... criterion that requires it to be "programmatically determind"*,* for example, it would..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have moved this text to the Understanding Document and have it to read as follows: "In order for content created with Web technologies (such as HTML, CSS, PDF, GIF, MPEG, Flash etc.) to be accessible to people with different types of disabilities, it is essential that the technologies used work with the accessibility features of browsers and other user agents, including assistive technologies. In order for something to meet a success criterion that requires it to be "programmatically determined," it would need to be implemented using a technology that has assistive technology support." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 17: "Accessibility Supported" awkward sentence Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0343.html (Issue ID: 2198) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- 3rd para: "Authors who don't know which technologies or which aspects...should consult documented..." Cut out the whole "who don't know" middle bit. Proposed Change: "Authors should consult documented..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have rewritten the introduction and this phrasing is no longer present. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 18: Rewording 1.1 slightly to include pure text, and a comma Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0344.html (Issue ID: 2199) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "...into other forms people need such as large print..." Proposed Change: "...into other forms people need, such as *pure text*, large print..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Text alternatives are by definition pure text. So it would not make sense to talk about converting text into pure text. But you have the right idea in that pure text is a goal of the guideline. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 19: 1.1. Non-text Content / Controls-Input Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0345.html (Issue ID: 2200) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "...then it has a name that describes its purpose." Name? Should it not be label, if it's an input control? The term "label" would seem tech agnostic enough, so not just a reference to <label> element in HTML, so could be applicable to all types of content. Proposed Change: "...then it has a *label* that describes its purpose." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- "Name" is defined in the glossary as "text by which software can identify a component within Web content to the user," which is available to assistive technology but may or may not be visually presented while "label" is defined to be always visually presented. The success criterion requires that a name be provided, but not that it be visually presented. For example, consider a phone or serial number field where there is one label at the left but then several text fields next to the label. Each field would need a name to identify them to AT, e.g. "(area code) (first 3 digits of phone number) (last 4 digits of phone number)" respectively, but they would not each need a visible label. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 20: prerecorded or pre-recorded? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0346.html (Issue ID: 2201) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- 1.2.3. has "pre-recorded", 1.2.4. has "prerecorded". double-checking now, it appears that both have been used interchangeably throughout the document. Settle on one spelling. Proposed Change: Suggest changing all occurrences of "pre-recorded" to "prerecorded" in entire document. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have changed to prerecorded throughout. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 21: Can CSS colour be classed as "programmatically determined"? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0347.html (Issue ID: 2202) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "...conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined." Thinking of CSS, one could argue that CSS colour values can be "programmatically determined". How can that kind of thing be excluded to get back to the actual meaning behind this SC? Proposed Change: Sorry, no idea...but it needs clarification unless the group feels it's adequately covered by the definition of "Programmatically Determined" and the admonition to authors to check known UA/AT implementation/support. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The explanation of the need for alternate presentation of color is given by Success Criterion 1.4.1 . While it might be possible for color values to be programmatically determined under SC 1.3.1, the usefulness of that is doubtful. We have added a note to explain this fact in the understanding document for SC 1.3.1. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 22: just applicable to "instructions"? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0348.html (Issue ID: 2203) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely..." Surely this applies to all content, not just instructions. Proposed Change: "Understanding and operating content *does* not rely..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The proposed change would exclude content that must describe sensory characteristics of content related to real world objects. For example, auto repair and product assembly instructions online may need to describe sensory characteristics of the process. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 23: just \"people with disabilities\"? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0349.html (Issue ID: 2204) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "Make it easier for people with disabilities to see and hear..." Surely this applies to ALL users, not just those with disabilities. Proposed Change: "Make it easier for users to see and hear..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have changed to "users'" ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 24: just "visually" evident? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0350.html (Issue ID: 2205) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- "...is also simultaneously visually evident without the color..." just visually evident? Proposed Change: "...is also simultaneously evident (and programmatically determined?) without the color..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Success criterion 1.4.1 speaks specifically to the case of visual perception of color. Non-visual perception is covered by success criterion 1.3.1. We have added a note to 1.4.1 to be sure that people note that the issue you raise is covered by 1.3.1. "Note: This success criterion addresses color perception specifically. Other forms of perception are covered in Guideline 1.3."
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:05:51 UTC