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: Maria Putzhuber <maria.putzhuber@chello.at>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:17:16 +0200
Message-ID: <47EFF54C.2090106@chello.at>
CC: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

dear hardworking wcag 2.0 working group,

iīd like to thank you for your detailed reply to all comments.
i accept your solutions.

regarding GL 1.2 - i still think itīs unrealistic, but of course: 
content that claims to be accessible has to be accessible.

regarding Issue ID 2489: i donīt have any suggestions to replace the 
term synchronized media. the term multimedia was sufficient for me 
but... this has been discussed already. i feel my english is not good 
enough to offer perfect explanations for difficult terms.

iīm looking forward to testing my future projects with wcag 2.0.

kind regards

maria putzhuber


-- 
Mag. Maria Putzhuber
Barrierefreies Webdesign und Accessibility Consulting

Meiselstraße 35/15
1150 Wien

Bürogemeinschaft WIENFLUSS
Proschkogasse 1/5
1060 Wien

Mobil:0699 / 1 92 38 601
Mail: mp@putzhuber.net
Web: http://www.putzhuber.net




Loretta Guarino Reid schrieb:
> Dear Maria Putzhuber,
> 
> 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: SC 1.2.1 not realistic
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0035.html
> (Issue ID: 2487)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> I know, captions are necessary to guarantee accessibility of videos
> including sound. but captioning seems to be an unrealistic challenge
> in daily business, where quick output is demanded. extra software,
> knowledge and time are needed.
> 
> we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media
> content  accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance of
> media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough
> for some media content.
> 
> media content could also be an interesting, but not essential
> addition, and not an alternative to text.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> some addition to phrase: except if the synchronized media is an
> alternative to text and is clearly labeled as such, to make an
> exemption for less important, additional media content.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> In a modern competitive business, it is unclear why any audio video
> material would be created that was unimportant. Audiovisual content
> costs time and money to create, even if relatively informal. If it is
> important enough to do for those that can hear, it should be important
> enough for those that cannot.
> 
> If materials do not meet these guidelines, then they would not be accessible.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: SC 1.2.2 not realistic
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0036.html
> (Issue ID: 2488)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media
> content fully accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance
> of media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough
> for some media content.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> include excemption like in sc 1.2.1
> 
> a text summary might be enough for some media content.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> As per your comment on captions,
> - if content is created, it is likely important enough that all should see it.
> - these guidelines do not require accessibility, just require that
> things be true if conformance to this guideline is to be used/claimed.
> - If cited in regulations, then exceptions for what needs to be
> covered (what needs to be accessible) are usually created.
> 
> In this particular example, you ask for text to be sufficient.  The
> current language does allow that.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3: GL 1.2 - terminology not clear
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0037.html
> (Issue ID: 2489)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Maybe itīs a translation problem, but I feel the explanations for
> synchronized media, live and prerecorded are not entirely clear.
> synchronized media is an uncommon term and difficult to translate.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> ?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Media are changing and the language in WCAG 2.0 needed to change to
> keep up.  It does make it somewhat more complicated, but that is a
> reflection of the way the technologies more than the terminology which
> must follow the technology.
> 
> We spent quite a bit of time trying to make this as simple and
> understandable as possible and still be accurate. If you have
> suggestions, we are interested in hearing them.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: GL 1.2 exceptions needed
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0038.html
> (Issue ID: 2490)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> imho exceptions regarding the importance of media content are needed
> for all 1.2 success criteria.
> 
> i donīt know any examples of audio description in online videos.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> include exceptions in all sc to 1.2
> 
> provide best practice examples in understanding documents
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We already have exceptions for non-text content that covers anything
> that is not information (e.g. pure decoration). The working group
> feels that any further limitations based on "importance" would be
> untestable and potentially a slippery slope.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 5: 1.4.3 - 5:1 too high
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0039.html
> (Issue ID: 2491)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> contrast ratio of 5:1 is quite challenging for designers, you canīt
> change the corporate identity of your clients for instance...
> 
> contrast control should be a browser feature, easier to use and find
> than it is now.
> 
> regarding: reference in understanding wcag doc to typical visual
> acuity of elders at roughly age 80: those elders might need some
> assistive technology.
> 
> as the life expectancy in most countries of the world is still below
> 80, designers might get the impression they have to fulfill the needs
> of users, that are on the average dead already.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> contrast ratio of at least 4:1
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We reviewed a variety of popular Web sites and we only found a few
> places on a couple of pages where 5:1 was not met. Also note that
> logos are already excepted. There is no need to worry about contrast
> on logos, logotypes, brandnames etc. when conforming (but it is nice
> of course if people create logos that would pass).
> 
> Regarding the 80 year old, that is just a side note.  There are many
> people of all ages that have low vision.  This was just to note that
> we all may need this feature if we live long enough.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 6: SC 1.4.4 - 200% is too high
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0040.html
> (Issue ID: 2492)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> soon all common modern browsers will provide a zoom function.
> 
> 200% of 12pt - 16px - 1em is 32px. not many layouts online will stand
> 200% text resizing.
> 
> the most common browser internet explorer does not even allow text
> resizing of 200%, as far as i know the two possible steps resize to
> 150%??
> 
> Proposed Change:
> allow text resizing for at least two text resizing steps of common browsers
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> The 200% figure was chosen because it is the smallest magnification
> supported by older screen magnifiers.   Zoom would meet this
> specification if implemented well Zoom, unlike text scaling, scales
> the page uniformly, so it preserves the layout of the page.
> 
> If some browsers do not zoom to 200 % that is not the fault or problem
> of the author.  Users would need to secure a browser that met their
> zoom needs.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 7: SC 2.2.2 - how to handle advertisements
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0041.html
> (Issue ID: 2493)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> does the criteria apply to adverts as well? or will adverts blocker be
> seen as a sufficient provision to hide blinking external content?
> 
> Proposed Change:
> mention advertisements in understanding doc.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> WCAG 2.0 conformance is based on full pages, so advertisements on
> pages for which a claim is made would always be included.
> Advertisement blockers would not be sufficient because advertisements
> are not purely decorative.
> 
> We have added a link to the definition of "pure decoration" to 2.2.2
> and have inserted some language related to advertisements under
> "Statement of Partial Conformance."
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 8: SC 2.4.8 AA instead of AAA
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0042.html
> (Issue ID: 2494)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> important for general orientation.
> 
> some of the sufficient techniques are quite common and easy to achieve.
> 
> if not all of the sufficient techniques are necessary, it could be a
> AA level sc.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> level aa with some exceptions (small sites...)
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Only one of the sufficient techniques must be satisfied to meet any
> success criterion, so it is not necessary to satisfy all of the
> sufficient techniques.
> 
> We agree that many of these are easy. A test for Levels A and AA,
> though, is whether it can be applied to all types of sites and types
> of content.
> 
> There is a wide variety of content on the Web. Some are navigation
> pages and breadcrumbs are common there.  Other content is copies of
> documents - and breadcrumbs cannot be added to these. In fact, many
> documents cannot be altered to include position information.   Also,
> there are many paths that may be taken to any point. If the person
> lands on a page via search, it is not clear how one would say where
> they were in the site if there were many paths to this page.
> 
> Since this cannot be applied to all pages, it is at level AAA.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 9: SC 2.4.10 AA instead of AAA
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0043.html
> (Issue ID: 2495)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> important for general orientation and usability for all user groups.
> 
> could be AA
> 
> Proposed Change:
> change to AA
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 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 10: non w3c techiques have to be named with clear examples
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0044.html
> (Issue ID: 2496)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> it is a bit frustrating, that the understanding documents donīt give
> any advice where it is needed the most.
> 
> the wai doesnīt have to provide all the techniques, but common non w3c
> formats have to be mentioned at least.
> 
> we need clear statements and examples, like:
> 
> PDF has to be tagged.
> for Level A this is probably too ambitious, as long as the tagging
> software isnīt better.
> 
> so a clear statement of the wai is needed, if pdf has to fulfill 1.3.1 or not.
> 
> Flash has to fullfill the requirements of several sc ....
> 
> Proposed Change:
> giving more examples of non w3c formats
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Although the requirements for WCAG are to write guidelines that could
> be applied to all web technologies, the scope of work for the Working
> Group only includes writing up techniques for W3C Recommendations
> (such as XHTML, SMIL, SVG, and MathML) as well as ECMAScript.
> 
> However, we recognize the need by authors to find information about
> techniques for other technologies, too. There are on-going discussions
> within WAI and W3C to try to find mechanisms to assist authors in
> finding other techniques as well.
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 20:18:04 GMT

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