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 17:21:50 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101721m145d4435h1736694ce64a42a2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Patrick Lauke,

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: Combine "usable in general" and "older individuals"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0000.html
(Issue ID: 2453)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The 2nd para sounds a bit stilted and, in the second half, seems to
jump from users with disabilities, to users in general, to degrees of
disability, and then back to (general)/older users.

Proposed Change:
Reorder sentences and merge the two general ones.

...and neurological disabilities. Although these guidelines cover a
wide range...and combinations of disabilities. These guidelines also
make content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities
due to aging, and often improve usability for all users in general.

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

Good suggestion. We have included your suggestion as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: "Webmasters"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0001.html
(Issue ID: 2454)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The term "Webmasters" is certainly outdated, and often today just
refers to the technical maintainer of a server.

Proposed Change:
Replace "Webmasters" with "Web designers and developers"

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

We have updated this section as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Metadata sentence right at the end
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0002.html
(Issue ID: 2455)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

This last sentence on metadata comes almost out of the blue, and seems
almost an afterthought. Also, it doesn't explain what metadata this
might actually be...what format? Additionally, are there actual tools
deployed today that take advantage of any such metadata, whatever its
format?

Proposed Change:
Either remove the sentence, or take this opportunity to clarify with a
few more sentences in a separate paragraph WHAT metadata, HOW it
should be implemented, and what concrete uses there are today?

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

That sentence was added in response to specific requests for an
indication of the role that metadata can play.  We have added a link
to the word METADATA that leads to a description such as you ask for
that is in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 Document.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Missing full stop
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0003.html
(Issue ID: 2456)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

A full stop is missing in "Accessibility Supported" explanation

Proposed Change:
"...technologies can be used to conform to WCAG 2.0 Success
Criteria*.* Technologies that are..."

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

Thank you. This typo has been fixed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Add reference to 1.2.1
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0005.html
(Issue ID: 2457)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The note for 1.2.3 already mentions prerecorded synchronised media,
but it may be worth adding the explicit reference back to 1.2.3 and
dropping the "in WCAG 2.0."

Proposed Change:
"...requirements for prerecorded synchronised media (see 1.2.1)."

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

We have removed the note as a result of other comments and a
reorganization of some the success criteria in guidelines 1.1 and 1.2.
Note that an explicit reference to 1.2.1 (now 1.2.2) was not included
since many of the success criteria under guideline 1.2 also relate to
prerecorded synchronized media.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: Add reference to 1.4.1
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0006.html
(Issue ID: 2458)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Although color is treated in 1.4, it is nonetheless a sensory
characteristic. Should it be added to the list, with a note
referencing 1.4.1?

Proposed Change:
"...components such as shape, *color,* size, visual location,
orientation or sound. (Level A)

Note: issues specific to color are covered in Guideline 1.4 (see
specifically 1.4.1)." (or similar)

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

We have added the following note to Success Criterion 1.3.3:

Note: For requirements related to color, refer to Guideline 1.4.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: Awkward wording in SC 1.4.2
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0007.html
(Issue ID: 2459)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Awkward wording

Proposed Change:
"...audio volume which can be set *independently* from the *overall*
system volume level..."

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

We have updated Success Criterion 1.4.2 as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: Clarification of note / awkward phrasing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0008.html
(Issue ID: 2460)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"one quarter as loud" sounds stilted. also, the note may benefit from
being prefaced by something like "In simple terms," or "As a rough
measure," or "As a rule of thumb,"...

Proposed Change:
Preface note with "In simple terms," or "As a rough measure" or "As a
rule of thumb," followed by "sound that meets this requirement will be
approximately four times quieter than the foreground speech content."

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

We have revised the note to read as follows:

In general, background sound that meets this requirement will be
approximately four times quieter than the foreground speech content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: 80 characters?
Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20080201003754.9BF965F70B@stu.w3.org
(Issue ID: 2462)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"width is no more than 80 characters" sounds arbitrary...do you
actually intend to talk about "line length", which is not necessarily
bound to just the number of characters, but can also be influenced by
the size/shape of the typeface used?

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

It is somewhat arbitrary.  We could have chosen 72, for example, which
is another common line length.  We chose 80 to  be a bit more relaxed
and because that is a standard in computers where as 72 is more
standard in typewriters.  The goal is to limit line length from being
too wide.  The number of characters is the only thing that can be
reliably measured.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: aligned on both left and right
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0011.html
(Issue ID: 2463)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"text is not aligned on both the left and the right"

generally, this is referred to as "justified"

Proposed Change:
"text is not justified (flush both left and right)"

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

We have updated the bullet to read, "text is not justified (aligned to
both the left and the right margins)."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: line spacing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0012.html
(Issue ID: 2464)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"line spacing" is generally referred to as "leading", but its usage
may admittedly be less known outside of proper graphic design circles

Proposed Change:
"leading (line spacing) is at least..."

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

We have updated this bullet to read, "line spacing (leading) is at least..."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: what if it's not the author's fault?
Source: \"line spacing\" is generally referred to as \"leading\", but
its usage may admittedly be less known outside of proper graphic
design circles (Issue ID: 2465)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

a known issue with flash in firefox is the fact that the plugin traps
the keyboard (and can even prevent tabbing *into* the flash movie),
while the same plugin works as expected in IE. where does an author
stand in this situation, where it's the UA's fault?

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

In a case like this - where it is a shortcoming of one browser, but
not a problem with other browsers - we would say that it was a
reasonable assumption by the author that the user could exit. The
Working Group would encourage the author to provide an additional
redundant function which allows the user to exit that they know does
work in most browsers.

Refer to Understanding Accessibility Support for additional information.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13: GL 2.4: "with disabilities"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0014.html
(Issue ID: 2466)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this Guideline and Guideline 2.4, are the only ones that explicitly
mention users "with disabilities". why are they being singled out? are
the guidelines not just as valid for "users in general, and older
individuals..." like it says in the intro?

Proposed Change:
remove "with disabilities" from the wording of the guideline
completely (and in the ToC, of course)

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: "with disabilities", take two
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0015.html
(Issue ID: 2467)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this Guideline and Guideline 2.2, are the only ones that explicitly
mention users "with disabilities". why are they being singled out? are
the guidelines not just as valid for "users in general, and older
individuals..." like it says in the intro?

Proposed Change:
remove "with disabilities" from the wording of the guideline
completely (and in the ToC, of course)

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15: arbitrary values?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0016.html
(Issue ID: 2468)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"Extend: ... at least ten times or
...

20 Hour Exception: the time limit is longer than 20 hours."

ten times and 20 hours seem completely arbitrary. why were they
chosen? if they *are* arbitrary, this needs to be clarified with
appropriate wording.

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

The 10 times extension was chosen to increase the response tail by 10
times to pick up those who need more time, but to limit the total
number of repeats so that it is not endless. The number 10 harmonizes
WCAG with other international standards.

Twenty hours was chosen in consultation with industry to allow
sessions to be closed in less than 24 hours to clear their servers -
even if they have no way to push a warning to users - but to allow
people who might need a full day to complete actions to have the time.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16: flashing dependent on size?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0018.html
(Issue ID: 2470)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

As with 2.3.1 (see my previous comment on that too), i believe there
is still a size limitation (or is even a single pixel subject to
this?)

Proposed Change:
Add relevant wording about the size of the flashing area (relating it
to percent of the field of view or similar). Also include in the
related "Understanding..." bit.

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

Whereas 2.3.1 uses the term "general flash and red flash thresholds,"
which includes all of the metrics size of the area,  2.3.2 has not
such limits.  As a result, even a single pixel flashing would violate
2.3.2.

The following has been added to understanding to make this clear.

"Whereas 2.3.1 allows flashing if it is dim enough or has a small
enough area, 2.3.2 does not allow flashing greater than 3 per second
regardless of brightness or size. A single pixel would violate 2.3.2.
The intent is to guard against flashing larger than a single pixel,
but since an unknown amount of magnification or high contrast setting
may be applied, the prohibition is against any flashing."

Because the definitions are normative, these metrics are also normative.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17: SC 2.4.5: sweeping generalisation?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0019.html
(Issue ID: 2471)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The wording seems far too general. Does this apply even to a site with
only 3 or 4 pages? How about a site consisting of a single page?

Proposed Change:
Clarify *when* this applies (and no *arbitrary* numbers of pages,
please, unless the wording makes it clear it's only an arbitrary
figure)

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

A site consisting of a single page is not a set of Web pages, so
success criterion 2.4.5 would be satisfied in this case.

We have added a sufficient technique to 2.4.5, "Linking to all of the
pages on the site from the home page so that it can serve both as a
home page and as a site map."

In addition, we have added the following paragraph to the
Understanding document to clarify that there are techniques that may
be appropriate for small sites.

"Even small sites should provide users some means of orientation. For
a three or four page site, with all pages linked from the home page,
it may be sufficient simply to provide links from and to the home page
where the links on the home page can also serve as a site map."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18: dependent on UA?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0020.html
(Issue ID: 2472)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Surely this is dependent for the most part on the UA itself? Authors
should not have to worry, *unless* they're actively overriding focus
(e.g. via CSS styling), in which case the wording needs to be changed.
Specifically setting very visible additional focus hints via CSS can
certainly improve usability/accessibility, but this is only in
addition to what the UA already does (and if the UA complies with
UAAG, even its default should be enough not to be a barrier to users)

Proposed Change:
If this is more along the lines of authors actively overriding focus
(e.g. via CSS styling), the wording needs to be changed...maybe
"Authors should not override or suppress any default focus
indicators". This would also require a rewrite of the relevant "How to
meet" and "Understanding"

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

SC 2.4.7 is often satisfied by the user agent with no special action
required by the author. The first sufficient technique listed, "G149:
Using user interface components that are highlighted by the user agent
when they receive focus", describes this situation.

However, when authors create custom controls, the custom controls may
not inherit the user agent's built-in support for focus highlighting.
In this  case, it is the author's responsibility to ensure that there
is some visible indication when the custom control has keyboard focus.

Because there are also Web pages where authors actively remove the
focus highlight provided by the user agent, this success criterion is
needed for the content itself.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 19: so headings are optional then at anything below AAA?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0021.html
(Issue ID: 2473)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

as headings (thinking HTML here) are absolutely essential in conveying
document structure, i'm wondering why this SC is relegated to AAA. i'd
have seen this more at AA at least. (compare with WCAG 1 checkpoint
3.5)

---------------------------------------------
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 20: ambiguous if not clear from context already?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0022.html
(Issue ID: 2474)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

with the current wording, it sounds like *any* word that could be
ambiguous needs to be covered by a mechanism. however, i assume this
implies "yes, there may be different meanings for this word, but only
specify pronunciation *if* the current context doesn't disambiguate
it".

Proposed Change:
change wording

"...where meaning is ambiguous (even in the current context) without
knowing the pronunciation"

or add a note

"this SC does not cover situations in which the specifically intended
meaning of the word is clear from the existing context"

also consider modifying "How to meet..." and "Understanding..." accordingly.

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

What you suggest is what the sentence is intended to mean. So we have
changed the SC to read:

3.1.6 Pronunciation: A mechanism is available for identifying specific
pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is
ambiguous   without knowing the pronunciation. (Level AAA)

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 21: "well formed"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0023.html
(Issue ID: 2475)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

use of "well formed" could help shorten this, or at least clarify with
a commonly-used term from the html/xml world.

Proposed Change:
"...Content implemented using markup languages *is /well formed/ - it*
has elements with..."

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

It is true that the guidelines now essentially require that content in
markup languages be well formed. However, exact parsing requirements
vary amongst markup languages, and most non XML-based languages do not
explicitly define requirements for well formedness. Therefore, it was
necessary to be more explicit in the success criterion in order to be
generally applicable to markup languages. Because the term "well
formed" is only defined in XML, and because end tags are sometimes
optional, valid HTML does not require well formed code. Therefore, we
felt we could not use that term.

We have added a note to the understanding document to help clarify this:

Note: The concept of "well formed" is close to what is required here.
However, exact parsing requirements vary amongst markup languages, and
most non XML-based languages do not explicitly define requirements for
well formedness. Therefore, it was necessary to be more explicit in
the success criterion in order to be generally applicable to markup
languages. Because the term "well formed" is only defined in XML, and
(because end tags are sometimes optional) valid HTML does not require
well formed code, the term is not used in this success criterion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 22: Awkward wording
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0025.html
(Issue ID: 2477)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Awkward, potentially confusing wording?

Proposed Change:
"(Conformance is not possible at *a particular* level if *any page* in
the sequence *does* not conform at that level.)"

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

We have revised the sentence as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 23: Optional components and the hint of metadata
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0026.html
(Issue ID: 2478)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"1. ... that consumers can use, preferably machine-readable metadata."

this seems to suggest that users can already consume metadata today.
are there any such tools widely available that take advantage of
metadata? if so, what are they?

5. and 6. also talk about metadata...however fail to suggest, or even
mention, any such metadata standard or format.

Proposed Change:
Either add hard information on metadata (e.g. currently available
formats/vocabularies), or drop the whole metadata talk (including the
little sentence in the intro)

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

There are currently metadata technique titles listed in the Quick
Reference and Understanding documents. Currently, they are advisory
due to lack of support in AT and other tools. We expect this to change
over the years - and awareness is important to progress in this area.

Rather than including more detail about metadata as a concept, we
provide a link to more complete resources in the "Understanding
Metadata" section of the understanding document.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 24: awkward phrasing - Statement of partial conformance
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0058.html
(Issue ID: 2509)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Proposed Change:
"...article that allows users to add comments, or applications..."
(remove "to the bottom", which is irrelevant)



"...such as portals and news sites, or sites that automatically insert
content from other sources over time."

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

Thank you. We have included these wording suggestions as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 25: abbreviation refers to "organization"?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0059.html
(Issue ID: 2510)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

the whole "...has not been rejected by the organization that it refers
to..." seems very out of place, and is not applicable to apply to all
types of abbreviations

Proposed Change:
remove the sentence, as it seems wholly irrelevant.

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

There are companies like Ecma where, before 1994, ECMA was an
initialism for "European Computer Manufacturers Association," but when
the company changed it's name it kept "Ecma" as a trademark for
historical purposes, but no longer recognized it as an abbreviation.

But, as you have highlighted, if it is not, then it is not and the
phrase cited is not needed. We have therefore moved the phrase into an
explanatory note.

The definition and note now read as follows:

abbreviation

    shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the abbreviation
has not become part of the language

Note:  There are some companies that have adopted what used to be an
initialism as their company name. In these cases, the new name of the
company is the letters (for example, Ecma) and the word is no longer
considered to be an abbreviation.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 26: Statement of partial conformance - both cases - awkward
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0060.html
(Issue ID: 2511)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"In both of these cases, it is not possible..."

Proposed Change:
change to "In these cases, it is not possible..."

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

We have incorporated your suggestion as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 27: Statement of partial conformance - immediately?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0061.html
(Issue ID: 2512)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

In point 1, I think the two instance of "immediately" are simply
unrealistic. What is "immediately"? It's just not possible.

Proposed Change:
either remove the two instances of "immediately", or change wording to
something more realistic ("within a reasonable timescale"?)

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

We have removed "immediately" and added "within two business days."
This way, it is clear that the intent for claims of partial
conformance is that corrections are made as a regular monitoring
process encounters non-conforming content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 28: accessibility supported - users' assistive technologies
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0063.html
(Issue ID: 2514)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

awkward  having "users' assistive technologies" 3 times in point 1.

Proposed Change:
remove "users'" and just say "assistive technologies", unless I'm
missing a fundamental reason why you're making a point of saying that
it's *users'* AT.

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

As you guessed, the word "users'" has significance. The key here is
that the technologies need to be accessible not to *all assistive
technology,* but to the assistive technologies of the users of the
site.

For example, if the site is an *intranet* and used only within a
company, then only the technologies used within the company would need
to be supported.  If it were a public site, then a wider range of
assistive technologies would need to be supported.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 29: activity where moving, blinking...
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0064.html
(Issue ID: 2515)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

the explanation is lengthy, and doesn't really say more than the term
it tries to clarify. maybe just focus on writing something that
explains what's meant by "essential"

Proposed Change:
just explain "essential" as "which, if removed, would fundamentally
change the functionality of the content"

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

We have added a definition of essential that reads:

essential
 if removed, would fundamentally change the information or
functionality of the content, and information and functionality can
not be achieved in another way that would conform


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 30: assistive technology - stray word
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0065.html
(Issue ID: 2516)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"Example: Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the
context of this document include the following:"

Proposed Change:
Remove the first "Example: "

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

Thank you. We have removed the duplicate text.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 31: blink vs flash
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0066.html
(Issue ID: 2517)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

the distinction between "blink" and "flash" still isn't clear. is
blink simply a special case of "flash"?

Proposed Change:
either clarify how the two differ, or merge their definitions

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

Blink and Flash are not mutually exclusive. Some blinking can cause
seizure while other blinking would not.  They are two overlapping
circles in a Venn diagram.

We have added links to the definition of "flash" in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.

This is explained in greater detail in the understanding documents for
2.2.2 and 2.3.1:

Note: The terms BLINKING and FLASHING can sometimes refer to the same content.

 * "Blinking" refers to content that causes a distraction problem.
Blinking can be allowed for a short time as long as it stops (or can
be stopped)

 * "Flashing" refers to content that can trigger a seizure (if it is
more than 3 per second and large and bright enough). This cannot be
allowed even for a second or it could cause a seizure. And turning the
flash off is also not an option since the seizure could occur faster
than most users could turn it off.

 * Blinking usually doesn't occur at speeds of 3 per second or more,
but it can. And if blinking occurs faster than 3 per second it would
also be considered a flash.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 32: captions - awkward wording
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0067.html
(Issue ID: 2518)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"text presented and synchronized with synchronized media..."

Proposed Change:
change to "text used in synchronized media..."

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

We have revised the definition of captions as follows:

captions

  synchronized visual or text equivalent for both dialog and
non-dialog audio information needed to understand the media content

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions
convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for
non-dialog audio information needed to understand the program content,
including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and
location.

Note 2: Closed Captions are equivalents that can be turned on and off
with some players.

Note 3: Open Captions are any captions that cannot be turned off. For
example, if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded
in video.

Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information
in the video.

Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

Note 6: Audio descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned
since they are descriptions of information that is already presented
visually.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 33: conforming alternative version - awkward wording
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0068.html
(Issue ID: 2519)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"4. for which one at least of the following is true:"

also, isn't point c just a special case of b?

Proposed Change:
change to "4. for which at least one of the following is true:"

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

Yes, that was a typo.  The word "one" was misplaced.

No, "c" is not a subset of "b". One is about *the* conforming
alternative page.
The other is about *a* conforming page that links to *the* conforming
alternative page.

For example, a landing page that contains links to both the conforming
and non-conforming versions would satisfy case "c", but not case "b".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 34: contrast ratio - generalised copy
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0098.html
(Issue ID: 2548)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this just mentions foreground/background color, but not adjacent
color. for clarity, it may be worth dropping the "of the foreground or
background" bit altogether

Proposed Change:
for clarity, it may be worth dropping the "of the foreground or
background" bit altogether

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

We have removed foreground and background from the basic definition of
contrast.   It is now only in the notes talking about how to apply it.

See http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 35: extended audio - clarification in note
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0099.html
(Issue ID: 2549)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

note could be expanded for clearer understanding

Proposed Change:
at the end of the note, add ". and the pauses between dialog/narration
are too short."

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

We have added your proposed text to the end of the note.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 36: flash
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0100.html
(Issue ID: 2550)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

does this need any further clarification of the size of the area that flashes?

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

In the definition of general flash and red flash thresholds, the size
is defined in terms of angle of vision.  Specific information about
key application areas is also provided in that definition. If you have
suggestions for information that would also be helpful, please send
them along.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 37: general flash and red threshold - confusing jargon?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0101.html
(Issue ID: 2551)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this section introduces a lot of specific jargon and technical wording
("steradians") and unqualified measures ("0.1 degrees" ... of what?")

Proposed Change:
clarify measures and avoid jargon

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

We have clarified the .1 degree. A steradian is the accurate term to
use for this provision, which is very technical in nature.  Wherever
possible, we also provide a plainer language equivalent. (in the case
of steradians, we included a parenthetical which describes in in terms
of percent of visual field).

Note that this particular provision can only be evaluated using the
simple test (less than 3 flashes per second) which is very simple - or
by using a tool.  The exact technical language is used to make tool
making more accurate and technically clear.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 38: navigated sequentially
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0102.html
(Issue ID: 2552)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

mention of "keyboard"...but this should possibly be expanded to
"keyboard interface"

Proposed Change:
replace "using the keyboard" with "using a keyboard interface"

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

We have included your proposed change and linked the updated text to
the definition of "keyboard interface."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 39: non-text content
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0103.html
(Issue ID: 2553)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"leetspeak (which is character substitution)" sounds awkward

Proposed Change:
replace with "leetspeak (which *uses* character substitution)"

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

We have updated the text as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 40: programmatically determined / programmatically determinable
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0105.html
(Issue ID: 2554)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this comes after "programmatically determined (programmatically
determinable) link content"

Proposed Change:
move above/before "programmatically determined (programmatically
determinable) link content" definition

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

We have reordered and simplified the defined terms to
"programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)" and
"programmatically determined link context."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 41: programmatically determiend - typo
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0106.html
(Issue ID: 2555)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

typo in "determiend"

Proposed Change:
change to "determined"

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

Thank you. We have corrected this typo.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 42: real-time event
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0107.html
(Issue ID: 2556)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

mentions "fantasy world" - sounds a bit strange to single out WoW and similar?

Proposed Change:
replace with "virtual world"

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

We have updated the example as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 43: role
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0108.html
(Issue ID: 2557)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"text or a number" the a is superfluous

Proposed Change:
replace with "text or number"

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

We have updated the definition as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 44: set of Web pages - clarify
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0109.html
(Issue ID: 2558)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"collection of Web pages that share a common purpose..."

worth mentioning these pages should also be on the same site (i.e. not
same purpose pages on different sites)?

Proposed Change:
replace with "collection of Web pages *on the same site* that share a
common purpose..."

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

Some sets of Web pages may not be on the same site. For example, the
last step in a set of Web pages on a shopping site may appear on a
separate site.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 45: set of Web pages - unnecessarily convoluted
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0110.html
(Issue ID: 2559)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"and that are created...organization"

sounds awkward, not always true - thinking of multi-author
environments - and addressed if my previous point is considered
(limiting the set of Web page to the same site)

Proposed Change:
remove entire "and that are created...organization" sentence

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

If this phrase is removed, the definition becomes too inclusive,
allowing too many things to be considered a set of Web pages.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 46: supplemental content
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0111.html
(Issue ID: 2560)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"Example 3: A paragraph describing..."

but the outcomes should already be present in the study....so it's not
describing, but summarising?

Proposed Change:
change to  "Example 3: A paragraph summarising..."

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

We have updated the example as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 47: synchronised media - awkward
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0112.html
(Issue ID: 2561)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"audio o video synchronised with another format..."



awkward wording

Proposed Change:
change to "different media elements (audio, video, text\") ..."

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

We have revised the definition of captions to address this and other comments.

captions

  synchronized visual or text equivalent for both dialog and
non-dialog audio information needed to understand the media content

Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions
convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for
non-dialog audio information needed to understand the program content,
including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and
location.

Note 2: Closed Captions are equivalents that can be turned on and off
with some players.

Note 3: Open Captions are any captions that cannot be turned off. For
example, if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded
in video.

Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information
in the video.

Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles.

Note 6: Audio descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned
since they are descriptions of information that is already presented
visually.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 48: viewport - awkward
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0113.html
(Issue ID: 2562)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"User agent user interface"

Proposed Change:
change to "A user agent's interface..."

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

We agree, but since this is is based on a term defined elsewhere
within W3C publications, we have chosen to retain the original
wording.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 49: user interface component - missing comma
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0114.html
(Issue ID: 2563)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...programming techniques but ..."

Proposed Change:
change to "...programming techniques*,* but ..."

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

Thank you. We have added the missing comma.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 50: web page example 4
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0115.html
(Issue ID: 2564)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

example 4 may need clarifying ... this is in effect a single-page website?

Proposed Change:
specify that ex4 deals with a single-page site

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

This *could* be a one page Web site, but could also be a feature
within a larger site. In most cases, it would not be a single-page Web
site.  Since making the example be a single page Web site might
confuse the issue the working group felt it better leave it as it is.

We have added the following to the end of example 4 "This might be a
single page Web site or just one page within the Web site."
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:22:09 GMT

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