W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

From: Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:46:37 +0900
Message-ID: <86fxu8euw2.wl%max@wide.ad.jp>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: Several Success Criteria include specific values
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0033.html
> (Issue ID: 2485)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------

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

> The values in the success criteria are based on both research and
> clinical input that has been gathered over a long period.

In order for WCAG 2.0 to be presented with credibility to broad
readers, I believe it is essential to include references to
paper/report/etc. which introduces such researches and clinical
experiences to support these values.  While these values may be
considered as common sense by accessibility experts, readers from
different fields may not look at them as such, and it is important
that there are external document which they can refer to.  Otherwise,
non-accessibility experts would not be able to know how credible or
stable these values are.

> If future research indicates different values, they would be changed
> in a revision or future version of WCAG.

I personally get an impression that there is a strong commitment and
hard work for WCAG 2.0 to be stable, and that it would not require
revisions for a long period of time.  Besides that, the fact that
there have been almost ten years inbetween two revisions of WCAG can
cause such an impression that WCAG is not to be revised for minor
changes.  If readers who are not certain about the stability and
credibility of these values get such an impression, that could cause
negative impression on the credibility of the whole document.

Therefor, if these values are to be kept in the normative part of the
document, there must be references that give strong support to them.

Masafumi NAKANE
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 03:47:17 GMT

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