W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:19:44 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101719r5b2a3c2do9ab9f66832aa2dae@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maria Putzhuber" <mp@putzhuber.net>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Maria Putzhuber,

Thank you for your comments on the 11 Dec 2007 Last Call Working Draft
of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211). The WCAG Working Group
has reviewed all comments received on the December draft. Before we
proceed to implementation, we would like to know whether we have
understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with
our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
us by 31 March 2008 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our
response. Note that this list is publicly archived.

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 10 March 2008 at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20080310/.

Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to
3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
to public-comments-wcag20@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed
during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C
Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in
advance of the meeting.

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: SC 1.2.1 not realistic
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0035.html
(Issue ID: 2487)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

I know, captions are necessary to guarantee accessibility of videos
including sound. but captioning seems to be an unrealistic challenge
in daily business, where quick output is demanded. extra software,
knowledge and time are needed.

we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media
content  accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance of
media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough
for some media content.

media content could also be an interesting, but not essential
addition, and not an alternative to text.

Proposed Change:
some addition to phrase: except if the synchronized media is an
alternative to text and is clearly labeled as such, to make an
exemption for less important, additional media content.

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

In a modern competitive business, it is unclear why any audio video
material would be created that was unimportant. Audiovisual content
costs time and money to create, even if relatively informal. If it is
important enough to do for those that can hear, it should be important
enough for those that cannot.

If materials do not meet these guidelines, then they would not be accessible.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: SC 1.2.2 not realistic
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0036.html
(Issue ID: 2488)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media
content fully accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance
of media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough
for some media content.

Proposed Change:
include excemption like in sc 1.2.1

a text summary might be enough for some media content.

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

As per your comment on captions,
- if content is created, it is likely important enough that all should see it.
- these guidelines do not require accessibility, just require that
things be true if conformance to this guideline is to be used/claimed.
- If cited in regulations, then exceptions for what needs to be
covered (what needs to be accessible) are usually created.

In this particular example, you ask for text to be sufficient.  The
current language does allow that.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: GL 1.2 - terminology not clear
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0037.html
(Issue ID: 2489)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Maybe itīs a translation problem, but I feel the explanations for
synchronized media, live and prerecorded are not entirely clear.
synchronized media is an uncommon term and difficult to translate.

Proposed Change:
?

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

Media are changing and the language in WCAG 2.0 needed to change to
keep up.  It does make it somewhat more complicated, but that is a
reflection of the way the technologies more than the terminology which
must follow the technology.

We spent quite a bit of time trying to make this as simple and
understandable as possible and still be accurate. If you have
suggestions, we are interested in hearing them.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: GL 1.2 exceptions needed
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0038.html
(Issue ID: 2490)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

imho exceptions regarding the importance of media content are needed
for all 1.2 success criteria.

i donīt know any examples of audio description in online videos.

Proposed Change:
include exceptions in all sc to 1.2

provide best practice examples in understanding documents

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

We already have exceptions for non-text content that covers anything
that is not information (e.g. pure decoration). The working group
feels that any further limitations based on "importance" would be
untestable and potentially a slippery slope.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: 1.4.3 - 5:1 too high
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0039.html
(Issue ID: 2491)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

contrast ratio of 5:1 is quite challenging for designers, you canīt
change the corporate identity of your clients for instance...

contrast control should be a browser feature, easier to use and find
than it is now.

regarding: reference in understanding wcag doc to typical visual
acuity of elders at roughly age 80: those elders might need some
assistive technology.

as the life expectancy in most countries of the world is still below
80, designers might get the impression they have to fulfill the needs
of users, that are on the average dead already.

Proposed Change:
contrast ratio of at least 4:1

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

We reviewed a variety of popular Web sites and we only found a few
places on a couple of pages where 5:1 was not met. Also note that
logos are already excepted. There is no need to worry about contrast
on logos, logotypes, brandnames etc. when conforming (but it is nice
of course if people create logos that would pass).

Regarding the 80 year old, that is just a side note.  There are many
people of all ages that have low vision.  This was just to note that
we all may need this feature if we live long enough.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: SC 1.4.4 - 200% is too high
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0040.html
(Issue ID: 2492)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

soon all common modern browsers will provide a zoom function.

200% of 12pt - 16px - 1em is 32px. not many layouts online will stand
200% text resizing.

the most common browser internet explorer does not even allow text
resizing of 200%, as far as i know the two possible steps resize to
150%??

Proposed Change:
allow text resizing for at least two text resizing steps of common browsers

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

The 200% figure was chosen because it is the smallest magnification
supported by older screen magnifiers.   Zoom would meet this
specification if implemented well Zoom, unlike text scaling, scales
the page uniformly, so it preserves the layout of the page.

If some browsers do not zoom to 200 % that is not the fault or problem
of the author.  Users would need to secure a browser that met their
zoom needs.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: SC 2.2.2 - how to handle advertisements
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0041.html
(Issue ID: 2493)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

does the criteria apply to adverts as well? or will adverts blocker be
seen as a sufficient provision to hide blinking external content?

Proposed Change:
mention advertisements in understanding doc.

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

WCAG 2.0 conformance is based on full pages, so advertisements on
pages for which a claim is made would always be included.
Advertisement blockers would not be sufficient because advertisements
are not purely decorative.

We have added a link to the definition of "pure decoration" to 2.2.2
and have inserted some language related to advertisements under
"Statement of Partial Conformance."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: SC 2.4.8 AA instead of AAA
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0042.html
(Issue ID: 2494)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

important for general orientation.

some of the sufficient techniques are quite common and easy to achieve.

if not all of the sufficient techniques are necessary, it could be a
AA level sc.

Proposed Change:
level aa with some exceptions (small sites...)

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

Only one of the sufficient techniques must be satisfied to meet any
success criterion, so it is not necessary to satisfy all of the
sufficient techniques.

We agree that many of these are easy. A test for Levels A and AA,
though, is whether it can be applied to all types of sites and types
of content.

There is a wide variety of content on the Web. Some are navigation
pages and breadcrumbs are common there.  Other content is copies of
documents - and breadcrumbs cannot be added to these. In fact, many
documents cannot be altered to include position information.   Also,
there are many paths that may be taken to any point. If the person
lands on a page via search, it is not clear how one would say where
they were in the site if there were many paths to this page.

Since this cannot be applied to all pages, it is at level AAA.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: SC 2.4.10 AA instead of AAA
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0043.html
(Issue ID: 2495)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

important for general orientation and usability for all user groups.

could be AA

Proposed Change:
change to AA

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

We had a number of comments that mistake the purpose of success
criterion 2.4.10 and success criterion 1.3.1.

Success criterion  1.3.1, which is at level A, requires that anything
that looks like a heading is marked up as a heading.

Success criterion 2.4.10 says that anywhere you could use a heading,
you have to insert one.  This provision is included at level AAA
because it cannot be applied to all types of content. It is often not
possible to insert headings. For example, if you are posting a
pre-existing document, you do not have the ability to insert headings
that an author did not include in the original document. Or, if you
have a long letter, it would often cover different topics, but putting
headings into a letter would be very strange.

However, if a document can be broken up into sections with headings,
it facilitates both understanding and navigation. For this reason, it
is a success criterion. But, because it can't always be done (or be
appropriate) it is at level AAA.

We have added this explanation to Understanding SC 2.4.10.

Failure F2 also speaks to this:

F2: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text
presentation to convey information without using the appropriate
markup or text.

	


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: non w3c techiques have to be named with clear examples
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0044.html
(Issue ID: 2496)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

it is a bit frustrating, that the understanding documents donīt give
any advice where it is needed the most.

the wai doesnīt have to provide all the techniques, but common non w3c
formats have to be mentioned at least.

we need clear statements and examples, like:

PDF has to be tagged.
for Level A this is probably too ambitious, as long as the tagging
software isnīt better.

so a clear statement of the wai is needed, if pdf has to fulfill 1.3.1 or not.

Flash has to fullfill the requirements of several sc ....

Proposed Change:
giving more examples of non w3c formats

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

Although the requirements for WCAG are to write guidelines that could
be applied to all web technologies, the scope of work for the Working
Group only includes writing up techniques for W3C Recommendations
(such as XHTML, SMIL, SVG, and MathML) as well as ECMAScript.

However, we recognize the need by authors to find information about
techniques for other technologies, too. There are on-going discussions
within WAI and W3C to try to find mechanisms to assist authors in
finding other techniques as well.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:20:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:25 GMT