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 17:21:45 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101721g48eb820ck98f457039c985949@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Brian Hardy" <Brian.Hardy@visionaustralia.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Brian Hardy,

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: Unclear wording of Sufficient Technique H73
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0035.html
(Issue ID: 2413)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Summary attribute should give an overview of "the layout of" the data.
(e.g what is in the columns and rows)

Summary of the content is provided in the caption (or accompanying text)

Proposed Change:
Add the words "the layout of" after "overview of

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

We have accepted your suggestion and changed the description to say:

"The objective of this technique is to provide a brief overview of how
data has been organized into a table or a brief explanation of how to
navigate the table."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: General Advice is listed as a failure
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0036.html
(Issue ID: 2414)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under failures is a technique promoting good Practice (G140)

Proposed Change:
Move technique G140 to the correct location in the document

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

Thank you. We have corrected this error.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Additional failure technique needed
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0037.html
(Issue ID: 2415)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Using CSS to position content allows the content in the underlying to
be in a random order. This makes the content incomprehensible for
screen reader users and very difficult for those using keyboard
access.

This should be specifically shown as a a failure

Proposed Change:
Additional Failure technique needed or modify failure F1 to pick up this issue

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

Regarding pages not making sense without CSS, F1 already covers this.
 The test for F1 is to turn off CSS and the result must make sense.

Regarding keyboard navigation, if the source order is meaningful (as
required), then the keyboard navigation would follow that order as per
SC 2.4.3 Focus Order.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Conformance Level wrong for SC 1.4.3
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0038.html
(Issue ID: 2416)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Having sufficient contrast on a website is critical for people with
low vision. Without it the website content is not available

Use of assistive technolgy such as Magnifiers does not overcome this problem.

While it may be possible to use a stylesheet to change the contrast,
this is an necessary and unreasonable burden on the user. It is easy
to build websites with reasonable contrast and is basic to accessible
design.

Proposed Change:
Change from Level AA to Level A.

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

We considered this at length and we have left 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
at level AA. There are ways, using either operating system or User
Agent 'highlighting' or 'contrast' tools/features to create high
contrast text. For example, setting the system highlight to always
highlight text as black text on yellow background.

Since there are ways to make text high contrast, we did not require it
at Level A due to the restrictions it places on color palettes.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Additional requirement for contrast controls
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0039.html
(Issue ID: 2417)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The contrast control option must itself be of sufficient contrast and
located prominently at the top left of the website

Proposed Change:
Add a sentence to the Note. "The contrast control itself must meet the
minimum contrast ratio and must be prominently located on the website
near the 'top' of the page"

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

Because there were a number of questions about the note and there are
other success criteria where similar notes would apply, we have
removed the note and updated the titles of the sufficient techniques
as follows:

For 1.4.3 (situations A and B):
Providing a control with at least a 5:1 contrast ratio that allows
users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast
(future link)

For 1.4.6 (situations A and B):
Providing a control with at least a 7:1 contrast ratio that allows
users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast
(future link)

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: Technique G142 Insufficient
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0040.html
(Issue ID: 2418)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Many zoom options in user agents cause the page to display in ways
that are incomprehensible or confusing. There availability is not
sufficient

Proposed Change:
After "user agents that support zoom" add the words "and the page is
still fully usable with the zoom function active."

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

We have added the following to the description:

This technique requires that the zoom function preserve all spatial
relationships on the page and that all functionality continues to be
available.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: Word "limited" in handle is confusing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0041.html
(Issue ID: 2419)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Unclear what is limited in the the title. Not clear that it means
there are exceptions

Proposed Change:
Change "Limited" to "Some Exceptions"

Refer also to comments on SC 1.4.9

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

We have revised the handles for 1.4.5 and 1.4.9 to "Images of Text"
and "Images of Text (No Exception)."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: Word "Essential" in handle is confusing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0042.html
(Issue ID: 2420)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The word "Essential" is confusing - The real intent here is that there
are no exceptions.

Proposed Change:
Change "Essential" to "No Exceptions"

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

We have revised the handles for 1.4.5 and 1.4.9 to "Images of Text"
and "Images of Text (No Exception)."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: Conformance Level wrong for SC 2.2.2
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0043.html
(Issue ID: 2421)
Status: PENDING
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Moving of blinking text that cannot be stopped can prevent some people
with learning disabilities, aspergers syndrome etc. from accessing any
other content. They become absolutely fixated on the scrolling
content.

It is also very distracting for people using their peripheral vision
to access content (as a result of say Macular Degeneration

Proposed Change:
Change conformance level from Level AA to Level A

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

The working group response to this issue is still pending; we will
reply to this issue separately.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: Reference to "users with disabilities" inappropriate
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0044.html
(Issue ID: 2422)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The point is that users are able to navigate etc. It is unnecessary
and meaningless to limit this specifically to users with a disability.

Under this guideline I have a hearing impairment so I should be able
to navigate etc..

My colleague without an apparent disability should NOT be able to
navigate etc.???

The whole of WCAG is about access for people with disabilities - There
is no need to specifically mention them in one Guideline

Proposed Change:
Delete words "with disabilities"

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

We have have changed "users with disabilities" to "users" in 2.2 and 2.4.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: Bypass Blocks handle confusing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0045.html
(Issue ID: 2423)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Unclear what is being by-passed "Blocks"? Need to clarify by adding
blocks of content

Proposed Change:
Add words "of content" after work "Blocks"

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

We have kept the success criteria "handles" as short as possible. The
intent for the handles is not to substitute or shorten the success
criterion. Instead, they are meant to provide enough information about
the success criterion that they will help users identify and remember
them.

In this case, the working group did not feel that the addition of "of
content" was necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: Additional failure technique needed for SC 2.4.3
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0046.html
(Issue ID: 2424)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

A common problem is that the source code order does not match the
visual page order (created by CSS positioning), particularly for
interactive elements. So a failure should be that source code order
does not match the visual page order and that there is no other
technique used to ensure that interactive elements are brought into
focus in the correct order (e.g. Tab Index in HTML)

Proposed Change:
Add a new failure.

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

The working group considered adding a success criterion that the
programmatically determined reading order match the visual order, but
felt that there was often not a unique visual order, particularly for
complex pages such as Web applications.

However, if the navigation sequence of interactive elements affects
the meaning of the Web page, Success Criterion 1.3.2 (Level A) is not
satisfied.

We have two failures in 1.3.2 that address your concerns:

F49: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.2 due to using an HTML layout
table that does not make sense when linearized

F1: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.2 due to changing the meaning of
content by positioning information with CSS

When the content contains interactive elements, SC 2.4.3 also applies.

G59 "Placing the interactive elements in an order that follows
sequences and relationships within the content" is a sufficient
technique for SC 2.4.3, and we're planning to add the sufficient
technique "Making the source order match the visual order (future
link)"

We also have a failure of SC 2.4.3:

F85: Failure of Success Criterion 2.4.3 due to using dialogs or menus
that are not adjacent to their trigger control in the sequential
navigation order

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13: Missing Success Criteria - Acronyms
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0047.htmlv
(Issue ID: 2425)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

There is no requirement under this guideline for Acronyms to be
identified. For users of screen reading technologies this has the
potential to make the content unreadable (E.g. ACT in Australia stands
 for Australian Capital Territory, but a screen reader would read
"act")

Proposed Change:
Add a Success Criteria requiring that Acronyms are able to be
Programatically Determined - Level  AA

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

Acronyms are a type of abbreviation and are therefore covered by the
"abbreviation" provision.  The definition of abbreviation points this
out:

abbreviation

    shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the original
expansion has not been rejected by the organization that it refers to
and where the abbreviation has not become part of the language

    Note: This includes initialisms and acronyms where:

       1.initialisms are shortened forms of a name or phrase made from
the initial letters of words or syllables contained in that name or
phrase
          Note 1: Not defined in all languages.
          Example 1: SNCF is a French initialism that contains the
initial letters of the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer, the
French national railroad.
          Example 2: ESP is an initialism for extrasensory perception.
       2.acronyms are abbreviated forms made from the initial letters
or parts of other words (in a name or phrase) which may be pronounced
as a word
          Example: NOAA is an acronym made from the initial letters of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United
States.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:21:59 GMT

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