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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:07:01 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032207l628c41a2k2e7bc3268e114d9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter Wallack" <peter.wallack@oracle.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Peter Wallack,

Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group
has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be
publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that,
we would like to know whether we have understood your comments
correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also
that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of
the entire document at this time.

Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
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 WCAG 2.0 Editor's
Draft of May-October 2007 at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/

Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we
cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the
comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0.

Regards,

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: Requirement for '7.) Full Pages' may be too narrow
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0393.html
(Issue ID: 2259)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

With the move to Web 2.0, it is possible that a 'single' web page is
re-used to render vastly different content, which previously might
have been presented as individual pages. In an extreme case, one can
imagine an entire application suite rendering in a single 'web page',
such that a browser 'Back' takes them completely out of the
application. In such a case, if a single piece of content were not
accessible, as currently worded the entire application would not be
able to claim conformance.

Proposed Change:
We suggest that the wording be broadened so that exceptions within a
'page', when using such dynamic content, can be specifically listed.
Or alternatively, the definition of 'web page' be broadened to account
for dynamic content on the screen.

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

If part of an application doesn't conform, the application as a whole
may not conform; but we do have the ability in the conformance to
provide accessible alternatives to non-conforming content within a
page which may allow the application as a whole to conform even of
parts of the page do not.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Description of the URI' does not map well to a 'product'
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0394.html
(Issue ID: 2260)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Required component #4 discusses the 'description of the URIs'. In the
case of a shipped product, the actual URI of the installed product is
unknown, and in any case is mostly irrelevant as users will not
necessarily navigate any of it via a 'URL'.

Proposed Change:
A description of the URIs, or the Product name, that the claim is
being made for, including whether subdomains are included in the
claim.

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

Respond with:
We have added the following note to clarify how claims should be made
for such comments: "Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to
installation on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the
product would conform when installed."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Handling non-conformance of one of many pages in a product
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0395.html
(Issue ID: 2261)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Further to a prior comments about 'products' and 'web pages', how is a
vendor to handle the situation where, for example, 1 out of 1000 web
pages of a product do not conform? Since our desire is to create the
conformance statement at the 'product' level we need a mechanism to
list exceptions.

Proposed Change:
Provide an additional provision of the required components of the
conformance claim so that individual non-conforming pages of a
'product' can be enumerated.

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

The current language already allows you to describe a scope of
conformance that would list a range (or product) and cite any pages
that are non-conforming.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:07:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:22 GMT