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 17:21:05 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101721g4aeae4e6p92c5ce2048e80924@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Sailesh Panchang,

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: unique link names?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0025.html
(Issue ID: 2403)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

WCAG1 (checkpoint 13.1) requires unique link names.
I remember reading somewhere that WCAG-WG now says WCAG2 does not need it.
But 3.2.4 Consistent Identification of UI components does need it, no?

In other words, if value of two HREF attributes are different, the linked
text for the two hyperlinks should not be the same. Right?

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

Success Criteria 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 require that link purpose be
determinable. Success criterion 3.2.4 is about consistency. If they go
to different places this should be determinable per 2.4.4 and 2.4.9.

2.4.4 requires that it be determinable from the link text alone, or
from the link text together with its programmatically determined link
context.

2.4.9 requires that the purpose of each link to be identified from
link text alone. (3.2.4 plus 2.4.9 would be the closest equivalent to
13.1 from WCAG 1.0.)

The only exception to these is where the purpose or result of using a
link is ambiguous to everyone whether they have a disability or not.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: SC 1.4.5 unclear
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0032.html
(Issue ID: 2410)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

I really could not understand  the significance of " When the accessibility
supported technologies being used can achieve the visual presentation," for
the SC 1.4.5 and believe the drafting of the entire SC and the list items in
the exceptions can be improved. I had to refer to the "Understanding" and
"How to" docs to grasp the intent of the SC. So here is an alternative draft
for 1.4.5 for your consideration:
 <draft starts>
Information should be conveyed by text and not via an image of the text
especially When the accessibility-supported technology in use is capable of
generating ( or can be configured to generate) various visual presentations.

Except where:
- The image of the text can be visually customized by the user to meet
viewing preferences;
- It is necessary to preserve a particular presentation of text for the
content.
</draft ends>

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

We were happy that you were able to determine the meaning from the
Understanding document and Quick Reference document. It was a
difficult provision to word.

Thanks for your suggestion, but it seems to be just as difficult to
understand and has some wording problems.  We will continue to look at
this one though to look for simpler wording during our implementation
phase.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Components do not have "sensory" characteristics but just
attributes or characteristics.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0048.html
(Issue ID: 2426)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The adjective "sensory" for characteristics does not seem appropriate
with regard to components

Proposed Change:
Drop the word "sensory"

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

The term 'sensory' is used to separate the characteristics that depend
on particular senses from other characteristics that might be used to
describe components (that can be perceived by different senses). As a
result, we cannot remove the word without unduly expanding the
coverage of the provision.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:21:18 GMT

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