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 17:20:12 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101720n28484023x1683d231ebc1aa03@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Masahiro Hori" <horim@res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Masahiro Hori,

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: clarification of the term 'perceivable'
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0069.html
(Issue ID: 2520)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it
can\'t be invisible to all of their senses)"

This statement for Principle 1 still relies on the term 'perceivable',
and does not fully clarify the state of becoming aware of the
availability of the information.

Proposed Change:
"users must become aware of the availability of the information being
presented through the senses (it can\'t be invisible to all of their
senses)"

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

The provisions only deal with making content perceivable.   Making
people aware of the availability is also a good goal but is different
than what is done with the "Perceivable" guidelines and success
criterion.

Awareness of availability would be more in the Operation or
Understanding principles.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: clarification of the term 'understandable'
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0070.html
(Issue ID: 2521)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"users must be able to understand the information as well as the
operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot be
beyond their understanding)"

This statement for Principle 3 distinguishes 'understandable' as being
separated from 'operable'.  However, it is not clear if the state of
being understandable still includes that of being perceivable.

If it is correct to assume that the states of being perceivable
(Principle 1), operable (Principle 2), and understandable (Principle
3) are mutually exclusive, the above statement may be changed in the
way as proposed below.

Proposed Change:
"This means that users must be able to interpret the meaning of
information correctly as well as the perception of the information and
the operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot
be beyond their understanding)".

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

The principles are not really mutually exclusive.  They must all be
true, but they do depend on each other.

We believe our current language is shorter and more accurate.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: a voice easy to understand (G 1.1)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0071.html
(Issue ID: 2522)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"spoken in a voice that is easy to understand,"

This guideline should specifically focus on perceivable presentation
of information rather than its understandability that is a primary
focus of Principle 3.  In that sense, it should be possible to reword
the above phrase "spoken in a voice that is easy to hear", but it
seems to be odd and redundant within the original sentence.  So, it
would be better simplify the phrase.

Proposed Change:
Simply change to "spoken in a voice"

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

Yes, this was not clear. What it is meant to say is that it is spoken
and is therefore easier to understand than if only printed. So, we
have changed the phrase in Understanding SC 1.1 to "spoken aloud so
that it is easier for people with reading disabilities to understand"

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: meaningful sequence (SC 1.3.2)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0072.html
(Issue ID: 2523)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

This criterion focuses on semantic consistency and issues related
understandability rather than perceivability. That is a point should
be covered by Principle 3, specifically under Guideline 3.2.

In addition, the phrase "perceive meaning" is confusing, because
perceiving is a key term in the whole of this document.

Proposed Change:
Move this criterion under Guideline 3.2, and change the wording
"perceive meaning" to "grasp meaning".

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

This provision is about the ability to reorganize the text while
maintaining the original intent; that is, the ability to perceive the
correct order makes the text easier to understand.  It could be moved
to principle 3, but it is so closely related to 1.3.1 that we feel it
is better here.

We did change "perceive meaning" (in the Understanding 1.3.2) to
"understand the meaning".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: usable default presentation (G 1.4)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0073.html
(Issue ID: 2524)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"making the default presentation as usable as possible"

Guideline 1.4 should focuses more on the ease of perceiving rather
than the ease of use in general.

Proposed Change:
Change the wording "as usable as possible"

to "as accessible as possible"

or "as easy to perceive as possible"

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

We have updated the sentence to read "... as easy to perceive as possible ..."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: understand the speech output (SC 1.4.2)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0074.html
(Issue ID: 2525)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"hard to understand the speech output"

It makes sense in general to say 'hard to understand'. However,
Guideline 1.4 is specifically concerned with making content
perceivable rather than understandable.  It is better to reword the
phrase to be more specific to Principle 1.

Proposed Change:
Change to "hard to hear the speech output"

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

We have updated the text as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: understand the speech (SC 1.4.7)
Source: hhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0075.html
(Issue ID: 2526)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"... who is hard of hearing can understand the speech.\"



It makes sense in general to say 'understand the speech'. However,
Guideline 1.4 is specifically concerned with making content
perceivable rather than understandable. It is better to reword the
phrase to be more specific to Principle 1.

Proposed Change:
Change "can understand the speech" to "can separate the speech from
background sounds or other nose"

Then, remove the sentence followed: "Individuals who are hard of
hearing have difficulty separating speech from background sounds or
other noise."

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

We have included your suggestions as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: descriptive titles (SC 2.4.2)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0076.html
(Issue ID: 2527)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

This criterion requires that page titles should be descriptive so that
users can more quickly identify the content they need. This is an
issue relevant to ease of understanding rather than operation.

Proposed Change:
Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.2 under the new guideline.

See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.4, 2.4.6, and 2.4.10.

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

We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: purpose of each link (SC 2.4.4)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0077.html
(Issue ID: 2528)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

If this criterion is not met, additional keystrokes may be needed for
assistive technology users. However, note here that the way to remedy
that situation is not by improving ease of typing or operation but by
making link text more understandable. In this sense, SC 2.4.4 is
concerned with the understandability of link text rather than the ease
of operation or physical interaction with link text.

Proposed Change:
Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.4 under the new guideline.

See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.6, and 2.4.10.

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

We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: descriptive labels (SC 2.4.6)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0078.html
(Issue ID: 2529)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

According to the statement "The intent of this Success Criterion is to
help users understand what information is contained ...", this
criterion is concerned with the understandability of link text rather
than the ease of operation in itself.

Proposed Change:
Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.6 under the new guideline.

See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.10.

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

We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: section headings (SC 2.4.10)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0079.html
(Issue ID: 2530)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Since this criterion primarily concerns with meaningful or semantic
organization of the content rather than syntactic organization, the
main issue related to this criterion is on the understandability of
section headings.

It is stated that "but visual presentation is not sufficient to
identify document sections", which indicates SC 2.4.10 focuses on an
issue that cannot be resolved with regard to perceivability.

In addition, according to the second note in SC 2.4.10, namely, "Note:
This Success Criterion covers sections within writing, not user
interface components", this criterion does not intend to focus on an
aspect of physical interaction.

Proposed Change:
Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.10 under the new guideline.

See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.6.

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

We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: G 3.1 covers perceivability as well as understandability
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0080.html
(Issue ID: 2531)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

This guideline is concerned with a process of making information
available for understanding. That requires to present information to
users in ways they can perceive ("in a way they can read" in the
context of this guideline), which is intended by Principle 1 (as
explained in Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0). Guideline 3.1
thus overly includes criteria to be covered by another guideline under
Principle 1.

Proposed Change:
Guideline 3.1 should be divided into two. One is "Readable: Make text
content available for understanding" (including success criteria
3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.6 because these criteria are not concerned with
the meaning in itself), which is to be put under Principle 1.

Another is "Complementary text: Make unusual text understandable"
(including success criteria 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5 because these
criteria are concerned with the meaning) that should remain under
Principle 3.

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

In this provision, reading is referring to the process of changing the
text into received language code.   It is more related to decoding and
understanding than to perception.   So, we believe Principle 3 is the
proper location for it.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13: Consistent Presentation (SC 3.2.3)
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0081.html
(Issue ID: 2532)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

This criterion intends "to encourage the use of consistent
presentation and layout for users", and help users distinguish
repeated content taking account of presentational or syntactic
consistency.  This aspect should be covered by Guideline 1.4.

Proposed Change:
Rename this criterion "Consistent Presentation", and put it under Guideline 1.4.

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

Guideline 1.4 is about ability to perceive, not to understand.  This
is about understanding the layout, not about being able to perceive
it.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:20:35 GMT

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