W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2012

RE: Call for Review: Applying WCAG to Non-Web ICT

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:22:42 +0000
To: "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AC7D8E@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
My comments are inline:

> For this draft, we particularly seek comments on:
> * The overall approach of the document.

A few comments:

1) Just specifying word replacements in text in the "Additional Guidance" does not seem sufficient (e.g. for 1.4.2), I think it would be better to also provide the actual adjusted text (with whatever warnings are necessary for it to be clear that this is not an official WCAG 2.0 SC):
1.4.2: Audio Control: If any audio on an electronic document or a software user interface plays automatically for more than 3 seconds, either a mechanism is available to pause or stop the audio, or a mechanism is available to control audio volume independently from the overall system volume level.
Note: Since any part of an electronic document or software user interface that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a user's ability to use the whole, all content on the electronic document or software user interface (whether or not it is used to meet other success criteria) must meet this success criterion. See Conformance Requirement 5: Non-Interference.

2) re: "This document does not address gaps in requirements that could potentially materialize when WCAG 2.0 is used with non-Web ICT; it is therefore important to note that WCAG 2.0 may not be sufficient by itself to ensure accessibility in non-Web ICT."
It is understandable that the WG would not attempt to fill these gaps, but in my opinion, the WG must attempt to at least identify them.

3) re: "This draft document focuses on non-web ICT, specifically non-web electronic documents and software aspects of products."
This needs more examples. Is it intended to cover mobile? It should.


> * The "Additional Guidance" in this draft.

1.1.1 re: "CAPTCHAs do not currently appear outside of the Web."
Perhaps say that they are rare instead.

1.3.1: The glossary definition of "Structure" should be adjusted away from web page-specific language. (and in general the glossary should be checked)

1.4.5: I suggest adding OS-level magnification (as in iOS, Windows, Gnome Shell, etc.)

2.3.1: For greater applicability to mobiles, perhaps the visual block should be represented in cm/inches rather than the more variable pixels.

2.4.4 re: "This does not include general user interface controls or buttons. (An OK button, for example, would not be a link.) " 
What's the rationale for the strong exemption for buttons? Buttons need to be understandable in context.


> * Is it necessary or helpful to provide guidance on applying the principles and/or guidelines? (This draft currently provides guidance only for success criteria.) Note that only the success criteria are used for determining conformance to WCAG 2.0.

No, it doesn't seem necessary.


Cheers,
Jan

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocadu.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/ 
Faculty of Design | OCAD University


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Henry [mailto:shawn@w3.org]
> Sent: July-27-12 10:40 AM
> To: WAI Interest Group
> Subject: Call for Review: Applying WCAG to Non-Web ICT
> 
> Dear WAI Interest Group,
> 
> WAI invites you to comment on the First Public Working Draft of Applying
> WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
> (WCAG2ICT) that is available at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/

> 
> About this document:
> This draft document provides guidance on how Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 can be applied to non-web information and
> communications technologies (ICT), specifically documents and software. It
> does not discuss whether or not WCAG 2.0 should be applied to non-Web
> ICT.
> This draft is an informative supporting document for WCAG 2.0. It is not
> normative, does not set requirements, and does not change the scope of
> WCAG 2.0 itself. It is planned to be a W3C Working Group Note.
> 
> Status:
> The WCAG WG believes the structure and approach of this document is
> complete. It includes existing wording from WCAG 2.0 -- the principles,
> guidelines, success criteria -- and the Intent sections from Understanding
> WCAG 2.0. It provides additional guidance on applying each success criteria to
> electronic documents and software, including the software aspects of
> products.
> In this draft, there are some sections yet to be written (which are indicated
> with "The WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet produced additional
> guidance..."), there are some questions and editor's notes to be addressed,
> and we expect additional edits based on review comments.
> 
> Review and comments:
> 
> For this draft, we particularly seek comments on:
> * The overall approach of the document.
> * The "Additional Guidance" in this draft.
> * Additional key terms to be defined in this document.
> * Is it necessary or helpful to provide guidance on applying the principles
> and/or guidelines? (This draft currently provides guidance only for success
> criteria.) Note that only the success criteria are used for determining
> conformance to WCAG 2.0.
> 
> Please send comments on this draft to the publicly-archived mailing list:
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> *by 7 September 2012*
> 
> About the related documents:
> * The focus of this review is the Additional Guidance sections (not the
> wording taken from other documents).
> * Understanding WCAG 2.0 is being updated. It will continue to focus on web
> technologies and not be changed to specifically address non-web ICT.
> * WCAG 2.0 itself is a stable Web Standard that will not change.
> * If you have comments on the wording taken from WCAG 2.0 or
> Understanding WCAG 2.0, please read the Instructions for Commenting on
> WCAG 2.0 Documents at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/

> 
> About the URI:
> The first URI in this e-mail goes to the latest version of the document. The
> "dated" version of this draft is: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-wcag2ict-

> 20120727/
> The difference between these URIs are explained in Referencing and Linking
> to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html

> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your
> comments.
> Feel free to circulate this message to other lists; please avoid cross-postings
> where possible.
> Short URI to this message: http://bit.ly/wcag2ict1

> 
> Regards,
> ~Shawn Henry, W3C, WAI Outreach
> Loretta Guarino Reid, Google Inc., WCAG WG Co-Chair Gregg Vanderheiden,
> Trace R&D Center, WCAG WG Co-Chair Andi Snow-Weaver, IBM Corporation,
> WCAG2ICT TF Co-Facilitator Mike Pluke, Castle Consulting, WCAG2ICT TF Co-
> Facilitator Michael Cooper, W3C, WCAG WG and WCAG2ICT TF Staff Contact
> Judy Brewer, W3C, WAI Director
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> Shawn Lawton Henry
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
> phone: +1.617.395.7664
> about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/

> 
> 

Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 20:23:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 July 2012 20:23:07 GMT