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 17:22:08 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101722p50d32f05o4b2c34ac44ada0bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Yukie Motomiya" <yukie.motomiya.zm@hitachi.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Yukie Motomiya,

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: Case of no items corresponding Level AAA conformance requirements
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0000.html
(Issue ID: 2594)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

We have one question on Conformance requirements 1):

 Q1. Do we understand correctly that we can't claim that our web site
conforms "level AAA"  if the web site doesn't include items correspond
to level AAA success criteria?


For example, "Live Audio-only"  can't be included in our web site. If
our understanding is correct, we can't claim our web site conform
"level AAA"  forever.

Proposed Change:
Add the status "not applicable" and accept this as, for example, Level AAA.

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

The success criteria have been worded to describe something that must
be true about the Web page. This means that if there is no content to
which a success criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied.

For instance, if there is no live audio on a Web page, then "All live
audio-only content has a text alternative" is satisfied. That is,
there is no live audio-only content that does not have a text
alternative.

So it is possible to satisfy Level AAA conformance on Web sites that
do not have items that correspond to the level AAA success criteria.
We have added text to Understanding Conformance, "What does
conformance mean?" to clarify this.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Necessity of sample of test files and evaluation report
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0001.html
(Issue ID: 2595)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

We have two questions on Conformance requirements 4):

 Q1. How can we judge the reliability of the information tells us that
the technology is accessibility supported?

 Q2 Do you think that the baseline of the accessible here is ambiguous?

We couldn't understand the reason why there are any rules regarding
the person or group who can evaluate and publish information on
Accessibility-Supported Technologies.

If this information can be published only by WCAG2.0 working group or
any authorities, we can easily accept that it can be reliable. But
everyone can do that now and we have to take time to judge it. Also it
can be a trouble if we find information tell us differently regarding
one technology.

Proposed Change:
Present the sample of test files and formats of evaluation report.
Test files should include plain HTML file, audio contents, movie
contents and so on.

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

Such data can only come from testing different versions of user
agents and assistive technology and recording whether the features of
the technology are supported. We expect that this information may
need to be compiled from multiple sources. Handling testing in
different languages for example can only reliably be done by people
intimately familiar with those languages and the AT available for
them.

WAI will be working with others to establish an approach for
collecting information on the accessibility support of various
technologies by different user
agents and assistive technologies.

We expect that there will be multiple lists that come out over time.
 WAI is not in a position to be sole judge. Certain lists will gain
credibility due to those that compile them and user experience based
on their use.   An important part of any testing and reporting would
be the use of test files as you suggest.




----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Poor support of CSS to Japanese text font
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0002.html
(Issue ID: 2596)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

In Japanese, CSS supports only some Japanese text fonts so that we use
imaged texts for presentation purpose to convey what we want to tell
through web site.

Did you investigate the CSS support situation rather than English languages?

Proposed Change:
Add the condition that accepts imaged texts using big and clear enough
and high contrast text so that it can be readable when magnified.

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

The working group realizes that technologies such as CSS have
different levels of support, particularly for different languages.
This was one of the reasons for introducing the concept of
"accessibility supported", so that authors rely on technologies only
as well as they are supported.

Since CSS does not support all Japanese text fonts, this would be an
example of a situation where the technologies being used cannot
achieve the visual presentation. So using images of text instead of
CSS for this reason would satisfy SC 1.4.5.

Note a text alternative would still be required.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Poor support of CSS to Japanese text font
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0003.html
(Issue ID: 2597)
Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

In Japanese, CSS supports only some Japanese text fonts so that we use
imaged texts for presentation purpose to convey what we want to tell
through web site.

Did you investigate the CSS support situation rather than English languages?


Proposed Change:
Add the condition that accepts imaged texts using big and clear enough
and high contrast text so that it can be readable when magnified.

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

SC 1.4.9 is more stringent than SC 1.4.5. It may not always be
possible to satisfy it, which is why it is a Level AAA success
criterion.

In this situation, if it is desirable to achieve visual effects with
the Japanese text fonts that rely on CSS, but support for CSS is not
sufficient, it may not be possible to satisfy SC 1.4.9. Or the design
of the page may need to be changed so that the Japanese text fonts can
still be used.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:22:20 GMT

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