W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Comments and thoughts about WCAG 2.0

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:50:38 +0100
Message-ID: <47A34DDE.5090705@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for sending these comments! However, noting the timing constraint 
(deadline for comments is today), I strongly suggest that you send in 
these comments on your own behalf to make sure that the WCAG WG receives 
them. We can then later discuss them at future ERT WG teleconferences, 
to see if any follow-up with regards to EARL or testing is needed.

Best,
   Shadi


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> Hi group.
> 
> Some comments about the WCAG 2.0 WD, mostly related to testability:
> 
> 
> * 1.4.8 Visual Presentation: For the visual presentation of blocks of text, a mechanism is available to achieve the following. (AAA)
> 
> - Width is no more than 80 characters
> 
> Having into consideration that the number of characters per line may be affected by different parameters (window size, screen resolution, font-size...) that are not controllable by the content creator, this requirement may be quite difficult (not to say impossible) to fulfil 
> 
> Additionally readability may be also equally affected when the line width is to narrow, so I don't understand why to put just top limits.
> 
> - Text is resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text.
> 
> Note that this implicitly means "do not use elastic (em based) designs" and that give us just "liquid (% based)" designs as the only option for flexible designs. (Or maybe you can also provide an alternative linear design via a switch control)
> 
> 
> * 1.4.9 Images of Text (Essential): Images of text are only used for pure decoration or where a particular presentation of text is essential to the information being conveyed. (Level AAA)
> 
> The criteria to decide whether something is essential is really ambiguous (specially when you are dealing width graphic designers ;o).
> 
> For example, could the use of an image for the presentation of text using some "non-standard" font on headers to follow the "look & feel" of a specific brand be considered essential for the information conveyed?
> 
> (Note that if you say no you are saying that the look & feel of a brand doesn't convey any information)
> 
> 
> * 2.1.3 Keyboard no exception: All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. (AAA)
> 
> Due to some user agents' behaviour, several embedded elements that are in theory operable through keyboard (for example a flash component if correctly developed) are not reachable through keyboard while navigating sequentially.
> 
> How is this success criterion going to affect these elements?
> Could people say that such a web page pass this success criterion?
> 
> * 2.4.3 Focus Order: If a Web page can be navigated sequentially and the navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability. (A)
> 
> IMO once a web page has any focusable element it can be navigated sequentially, and I can't think about a use case where the sequence doesn't affect meaning, so I don't see the need of the conditionals here and I think they add confusion focus order.
> 
> 
> * 2.4.10 Section Headings:  Section headings are used to organize the content.  (Level AAA)
> 
> Can't imagine why this success criterion has been "degraded" to AAA level, as I think it's widely recognized as a really useful and important one.
> 
> 
> 4.1.2 For all user interface components, the name and role can be programmatically determined; states, properties, and values that can be set by the user can be programmatically determined and programmatically set [...] (A)
> 
> This sounds like requiring the use of WAI-ARIA while it's still work in progress. I think that doesn't make much sense.
> 
> 
> * Conformance
> 
> - Conformance requirements
> 
> 5 - Non-Interference: If technologies that are not accessibility supported are used on a page, or accessibility-supported technologies are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page [...].
> 
> There are five conformance requirements, and you need to fulfil all of them if you want to be conformant.
> 
> If you use accessibility-supported technologies in a non-conforming way you don't satisfy the first requirement (Conformance Level) and so you are not going to be conformant.
> 
> So, I think that the reference to accessibility-supported technologies that are used in a non-conformance way here just add confusion, as it could lead to the conclusion that you can be conformant using accessibility-supported technologies in a non-conformance way.
> 
> - Conformance claims
> 
> There is no mention to WCAG conformance logos.
> Is there any plan to create WCAG 2.0 conformance logos?
> If so, how is going to be the relation between logos and conformance claims?
> Once you use the logo, are you required to make a conformance claim?
> 
> IMO, these logos must be treated as conformance claims and the same information must be provided.
> 
> 
> * Appendix A: Glossary
> 
> - Accessibility supported
> 
> The whole WCAG 2.0 relies on the concept f Accessibility supported technologies, but the provision of any list of Web technologies with Accessibility Support is avoided, making thus WCAG 2.0 unusable in practice until anybody else will do it.
> 
> IMO, at least it must be explicitly exposed that, in absence of any other accessibility supported web technologies list, the wider choice must be used (i.e. just HTML as accessibility supported web tehcnology).
> 
> 
> - Contrast ratio
> 
> It is not clear how to proceed in the case of images of text that have an edge around the letters (see attachment for an example).
> 
> It is supposed that you should use the edge color as foreground color or as a background color for the font face. May this need to be clarified at the contrast ratio explanation [1] in the same way as was made for dithered colors for example?
> 
> 
> [1] - [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef]
> 
> Regards,
>  CI.
> 
> _____________________
> 
> Carlos Iglesias
> 
> Fundación CTIC
> Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
> 33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España
> 
> teléfono: +34 984291212
> fax: +34 984390612
> email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
> URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 16:51:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2008 16:51:26 GMT