Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------
>  > Comment 1: Several Success Criteria include specific values
>  > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0033.html
>  > (Issue ID: 2485)
>  > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
>  > ----------------------------
>
>  > Response from Working Group:
>  > ---------------------------------------------
>
>  > The values in the success criteria are based on both research and
>  > clinical input that has been gathered over a long period.
>
>  In order for WCAG 2.0 to be presented with credibility to broad
>  readers, I believe it is essential to include references to
>  paper/report/etc. which introduces such researches and clinical
>  experiences to support these values.  While these values may be
>  considered as common sense by accessibility experts, readers from
>  different fields may not look at them as such, and it is important
>  that there are external document which they can refer to.  Otherwise,
>  non-accessibility experts would not be able to know how credible or
>  stable these values are.
>
>  > If future research indicates different values, they would be changed
>  > in a revision or future version of WCAG.
>
>  I personally get an impression that there is a strong commitment and
>  hard work for WCAG 2.0 to be stable, and that it would not require
>  revisions for a long period of time.  Besides that, the fact that
>  there have been almost ten years inbetween two revisions of WCAG can
>  cause such an impression that WCAG is not to be revised for minor
>  changes.  If readers who are not certain about the stability and
>  credibility of these values get such an impression, that could cause
>  negative impression on the credibility of the whole document.
>
>  Therefor, if these values are to be kept in the normative part of the
>  document, there must be references that give strong support to them.

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------
The Resource sections in Understanding WCAG 2.0 include references for
the different success criteria. We do not claim that these lists are
exhaustive and we welcome suggestions for additional resources.
Because this is not a normative document, we can continue to add
resources as additional research occurs in these areas.

We agree that we do not expect WCAG to be revised frequently. However,
new research that demonstrates that values used in the success
criteria are harmful to accessibility would be a clear trigger for a
revision.

Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 9?

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

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 22:00:03 UTC