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 17:21:39 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101721i3982b0d9g9841dca4a4c1eef@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wendy Chisholm" <chisholm.wendy@gmail.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Wendy Chisolm,

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: Can "conforming alternate versions" be objects on a page?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0091.html
(Issue ID: 2542)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

I evaluated a web site that uses SilverLight to create an in-page
streaming media player; SilverLight is not (yet) an
accessibility-supported technology.  Immediately after the SilverLight
object is a link to a windows media version of the multimedia.
(Assuming the wmv is accessible), would you consider the wmv a
"conforming alternate version?"   The supporting documentation for
"conforming alternate version" implies that the whole page needs an
alternative.  In this case, only one object on the page needs an
alternative.

Proposed Change:
A sufficient technique Gn: Providing a link immediately after a
nonconforming object that points to an alternate version that does
meet WCAG 2.0 at the level claimed

Or does that open a can of worms?  If the nonconforming object is an
email application, then a link after it would be similar to G136.

??

From
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0092.html :

Looking at the SilverLight media player example, as long as it does not
interfere with the rest of the page Non-Interference") and the content is
provided elsewhere (in wmv, "Accessibility Supported Technologies Only") and is
linked to from the page, then I could claim that the page conforms.  Right?

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

Correct. The 'alternate version' refers to a full page, but the page
you describe would conform since all the information is conforming or
has accessible alternative that is available from the page.

We have also added your general technique with a slight edit for clarity.

Providing a link immediately after a non-conforming object that links
to a conforming alternate version (future link)

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0093.html
(Issue ID: 2543)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Overall, I think this draft is good (caveat: I only reviewed the Level
A SC).  I am disappointed by the lack of a Level A success criterion
for liquid layout (1.4.4), but I do not think that should stop the
document from moving forward.

I evaluated a real-world site with multimedia, images, forms,
scripting (including a change of context on focus), timing,
non-accessibility supported technologies, and a tag cloud where font
size has meaning.  The evaluation put each Level A success criteria to
the test.  While I had to dig through many situations and techniques
to fully understand some of the success criteria, ultimately I was
able to understand almost everything (only a little confusion on 1.1.1
and conformance - see my other comments). While the site that I
evaluated failed several of these criteria, I was able to suggest
specific fixes that would allow the site to claim Level A conformance
- and more importantly - increase its accessibility to people with
disabilities.

I believe that WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation.

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

Thank you. By moving to Last Call, you can tell that we feel it is
ready as well. We were able to substantially improve it with the
feedback over the last year - and we look forward to tuning it further
- particularly in the area of techniques for different technologies as
we move through implementation.

We do have a sufficient technique, "G146: Using liquid layout," as a
recommend way to satisfy SC 1.4.4. If you have additional suggestions
related to liquid layout, please feel free to submit them using our
technique submission form.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:22:03 GMT

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