W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-uaag2-comments@w3.org > May 2013

RE: WAI Interest Group Review on UAAG Working Draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

From: ROBERTSON,Andrew <Andrew.Robertson@fwo.gov.au>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:24:25 +1000
To: "public-uaag2-comments@w3.org" <public-uaag2-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5A61FE00536313409E2CA4917ED14D479056B38E1F@FWEXN065V5.nation.radix>

Feedback to the draft documents is as follows:

1.     UAAG20:

a.     Edits to:

                                          i.    Conformance section:

1.     for browser extensions:

a.     If this is point 8 in the 'Components of UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claims' section then no comment.

b.    Otherwise I was not able to detect the change.

2.     on exemptions for platform limitations:

a.     If this is point 7 in the 'Components of UAAG 2.0 Conformance Claims' section then the definition is too narrow e.g. ignores user agents developed using a 3rd party user agent platform e.g. customised instance of MS CRM or SharePoint.

b.    The author's ability to achieve genuine compliance is frustrated by limitations of the tools provided to him.

c.     It is only fair the author gets the chance to document his frustration/s to escalate up his reporting chain, and hopefully, alerting the vendor to implement a fix/enhancement.

d.    It would also:

                                                                                          i.    allow users additional visibility to measure author's attempts at compliance.

                                                                                         ii.    potentially assist authors with a genuine defence in the event of a discrimination claim.

                                         ii.    Introduction section with more details on:

1.     Relationship between WCAG and UAAG:

a.     OK

2.     Definitions of compliance levels:

a.     OK - but

b.    It isn't fair or indicative if a user agent is genuinely compliant in all AA or AAA criteria yet has to be regarded as non-compliant overall if only one level A criteria is non-compliant.

c.     This is another reason why exemptions for platform limitation changes should not just include hardware and OS, but the development platform where the author is not the user agent's vendor.

d.    5.1.3 talks about rating platforms.  Organisations serious about WCAG 2.0 compliance will seek platforms that either meet or exceed their compliance target during procurement.

3.     Definition of User Agent:

a.     There should also be a distinction between s/w developed by a vendor vs s/w developed in-house using a platform purchased from a vendor.  This would assist with the changes already suggested above.

2.     IUAAG20:

a.     Edits:

                                          i.    Adding mobile accessibility examples throughout:

1.     The examples added make sense and are welcome.

2.     I note not every guideline has mobile accessibility examples.

3.     UAAG Working Group questions:

a.     What accessibility needs specific to mobile web application user interfaces have not been addressed that should be addressed by UAAG 2.0?

                                          i.    I don't know.  The technology in the smart phones is getting better, an example is the Samsung S4.

b.    Relationship with WCAG<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#intro-wcag> - Is it clear that WCAG applies to all web content and UAAG adds guidance to user interface of web applications?

                                          i.    Yes

c.     5.1.1<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#sc-511> - If you are developing a user agent for a specific experience, say a Macintosh experience to run on a Windows platform, should you have to meet the platform accessibility requirements of the Windows platform?

                                          i.    Do you really mean 5.1.3?

                                         ii.    Look and feel is important for users to be aware of the application they are accessing.  So when knowingly accessing a Mac app on a Windows platform, they should be doing so according to Mac standards.  Trying to impose the Windows standards on the Mac app could confuse the user, or worst case, render the Mac app useless.

d.    Conformance<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#conformance> - Some UAAG 2.0 requirements may be met by the platform (e.g. keyboard shortcuts on a mobile phone). If the user agent software runs on multiple platforms (e.g. a web app) should the user agent be able to claim conformance even if the feature doesn't work on all platforms?

                                          i.    Yes.

                                         ii.    The user agent cannot control compliance of the platform or their availability.  Authors must only be held to account for the things they can actually control.

e.     Are there sufficient examples of other technologies that support accessibility, e.g. WAI-ARIA, HTML5 Canvas, IndieUI?

                                          i.    I'm not aware of others.

4.     General feedback on both documents:

a.     Sections an lines need to be numbered so they can be more easily referenced.  Dot points should be numbered lists (similar to this eMail).  It is inconsistent throughout the document.

b.    Navigation of the documents could be easier

                                          i.    if the table of contents was there as a navigation bar on the right or left side of the document; or

                                         ii.    after each subsection there was a link to navigate back to the top of the document.

c.     It appears to me the drafts are attempting to make representation of compliance attempts more realistic & indicative than what it is at the moment.  This is to be commended.

If you have questions or queries, please feel free to contact me.



Andrew Robertson

IT Security & Governance Manager

Service Operations Section

Fair Work<http://www.fwo.gov.au/> Ombudsman<http://www.fwo.gov.au/>


02 6218 0619




0427 586 913


02 6204 2977


GPO Box 9887 Canberra ACT 2601

Level 10, 208 Bunda St and cnr Akuna St, Canberra, ACT 2600



Fair Work Info Line: 13 13 94


subscribe to our eNewsletter<http://www.fairwork.gov.au/media-centre/enewsletter/pages/enewsletter-sign-up.aspx>

[cid:image003.png@01CE589B.1D9F2FF0]<http://twitter.com/#!/fairwork_gov_au>[cid:image005.jpg@01CE589B.1D9F2FF0]<http://facebook.com/fairwork.gov.au> [cid:image007.jpg@01CE589B.1D9F2FF0] <http://youtube.com/FairWorkGovAu>  [cid:image009.jpg@01CE589B.1D9F2FF0] <http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pages/rssalerts.aspx>


Please consider the environment before printing this message.

From: Dunbar, Shona [mailto:Shona.Dunbar@finance.gov.au] On Behalf Of WCAG 2
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013 11:06
To: WCAG 2
Subject: WAI Interest Group Review on UAAG Working Draft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


Hi NTS Contact,

Just for your interest - please send any comments you may have directly to the User Agent Working Group as per the request below.


Shona Dunbar
Australian Government Information Management Office | Web Advice and Policy
Department of Finance and Deregulation
phone: 02 6215 2064 | email: shona.dunbar@finance.gov.au<mailto:shona.dunbar@finance.gov.au>
AGIMO Blog<http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/category/accessibility/> (http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/category/accessibility/)


-----Original Message-----

From: Shawn Henry [mailto:shawn@w3.org]

Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013 2:52 AM

To: WAI Interest Group

Subject: Call for Review: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 Working Drafts

Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

WAI invites you to comment on updated Working Drafts of:

* User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0


* Implementing UAAG 2.0 Working Draft


Changes in the updated UAAG 2.0 Working Draft include:

* Edited the conformance section to encourage browser extensions that provide accessibility features to claim limited conformance

* Added a provision to Conformance to allow mobile browsers to claim conformance if the underlying platform does not support a success criterion of UAAG 2.0

* Updated the introduction section with more details on:

** The relationship between WCAG and UAAG

** Definitions of levels A, AA, AAA

** Definition of a User Agent

Changes in the updated Implementing UAAG 2.0 Working Draft include:

* Added mobile accessibility examples throughout

The UAAG Working Group is looking for feedback on these changes along with the specific questions listed in the Status section at:


WAI encourages people with disabilities and developers of browsers, assistive technologies, plug-ins, extensions, and accessibility APIs (application programming interfaces) to provide feedback on these drafts. Please send comments to the publicly-archived list:


      *by 21 June 2013*

We also welcome additional help developing UAAG. If you might be interested in actively participating in the UAAG Working Group, please read: Participating in WAI at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/participation> and contact Jeanne Spellman <http://www.w3.org/People/jeanne/>


UAAG defines how browsers, media players, and other "user agents" should support accessibility for people with disabilities and work with assistive technologies. Implementing UAAG 2.0 provides additional information about the guidelines and success criteria, including intent, examples, and resources.

UAAG is part of a series of accessibility standards developed by WAI, including Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG).

For more information on UAAG and WAI standards, see:

* UAAG Overview <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.php>

* WAI Guidelines and Techniques <http://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html>

* User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/>

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.


Shawn Lawton Henry, WAI Education and Outreach Jim Allan, UAWG Co-Chair Kelly Ford, UAWG Co-Chair Jeanne Spellman, UAWG W3C Staff Contact


Shawn Lawton Henry

W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

e-mail: shawn@w3.org<mailto:shawn@w3.org>

phone: +1.617.395.7664

about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/



Finance Australian Business Number (ABN):   61 970 632 495

Finance Web Site:   www.finance.gov.au<http://www.finance.gov.au>


This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone on 61-2-6215-2222 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

If responding to this email, please send to the appropriate person using the suffix .gov.au.


This email is sent by the Fair Work Ombudsman (ABN 43 884 188 232).
The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential information and may also be the subject of client legal - legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited.
This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright. No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written permission of the copyright owner.

If you have received this email in error, please immediately:
(1) notify the Fair Work Ombudsman by calling 13 13 94;
(2) notify the sender by return email;
(3) delete the message and any attachments from your system;
(4) destroy any printed copy; and
(5) do not disclose or use any of the information contained in the message or the attachments.

This notice should not be removed from this email message.
There is no warranty that this email is error or virus free.
The Fair Work Ombudsman respects your privacy.
Our privacy policy can be accessed from our web site www.fairwork.gov.au.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

(image/jpeg attachment: image010.jpg)

(image/png attachment: image003.png)

(image/jpeg attachment: image005.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image007.jpg)

(image/jpeg attachment: image009.jpg)

Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 10:33:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:43 UTC