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 17:22:21 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101722m7557f609h36af08dff3f1a95b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Takayuki Watanabe, Masahiro Umegaki, Makoto Ueki" <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear JIS,

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: Visually customizable text
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0094.html
(Issue ID: 2544)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

We need to clarify the intent of this SC. In the first bullet, it
reads "Customizable: The image of text can be visually customized to
the user's requirements;". What do you mean by "visually customized"?
Does it include all of the following?:

- Font family
- Font weight
- Font color
- Font size

Proposed Change:
Need more clarification on what "visually customized" means.

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

We have added the following definition as you requested.

visually customized
 the font, size, color, and background can be set

We have also added the following example to Understanding 1.4.5:

Customizable font settings in images of text
A Web site allows users to specify font settings and all images of
text on the site are then provided based on those settings.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Text of Image
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0095.html
(Issue ID: 2545)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Does text of image include text generated by SVG?

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

SVG is capable of rendering both text and images of text. The
difference is whether or not the content in question is a "sequence of
characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence
is expressing something in human language."

For the purposes of Success Criterion 1.4.5, "text" in SVG could be
used to meet this requirement as long as it could be programmatically
determined.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: 80 characters
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0096.html
(Issue ID: 2546)
Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

In the second bullet, does "80 characters" apply to the Japanese characters?

The character in Japanese are double-byte character in general. For
the Japanese content, would "40 characters" be appropriate for this?

Proposed Change:
Need the number for the other languages than the alphabetical
languages such as CJK characters.

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

This is a good point about CJK languages. Thank you. We intended this
to be about visual presentation, and not the encoding.

There are some studies about readability of the font size of Roman,
Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters.  These studies showed
that an easy-to-read font size for Kanji is about two times
wider than that of Roman characters.  As for Hiragana and Katakana, the
ratio seems to be a bit smaller than two. In addition, most Japanese
fixed-width fonts are designed so characters are two times wider than
Roman characters. So 80 Roman characters span roughly as much
horizontal space as 40 characters of Japanese Zenkaku (double-byte)
characters.

We have modified the success criterion so that line lengths for both
CJK and non-CJK are specified and line lengths are comparable for CJK
and non-CJK characters. We will also add a number of resources on the
Japanese research to the Understanding 1.4.8 document.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: How to create the documented lists
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0097.html
(Issue ID: 2547)
Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Thank you for providing the detailed information on "Documented lists
of Web technologies with Accessibility Support". However, We still
couldn't understand how to create the lists. Will the WCAG WG provide
the test files and/or the common forms of documentation? We won't be
able to create the lists for Japanese without those materials. Also it
would be the same for any other languages. There should be the
consistency for the documentation among the languages. International
companies could be annoyed if the documented lists for different
languages would differ in quality.

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

The working group recognizes that the need for information on which
technologies are 'accessibility-supported' is important to use of the
guidelines.

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. 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.

WCAG 2.0 is still in development. We expect that during Candidate
Recommendation period we will have some initial information on
accessibility supported technologies, to demonstrate how this
approach will work once WCAG 2.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation.

The Candidate Recommendation process itself requires that there be
examples that demonstrate conformance. So there will certainly be some
information about accessibility supported technologies in order to get
out of the candidate recommendation stage for WCAG 2.0.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:22:33 GMT

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