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

Re: WCAG 2 comments follow-up

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:00:45 +0100
Message-ID: <47DEBFDD.6010906@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos,

Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> 
> Hi group,
> 
> Some thoughts on WCAG WG response [1]:
> 
> - About comment #1
> 
> First of all, a testcase to make clear the success criterion is wrong [2] 
> 
> Note that every paragraph in the test case has a width of 80 ems, but no one has 80 characters per line, not even near to them.
> 
> Now that the assumption of "80 ems width equals 80 characters per line" clearly seems a little bit optimistic we can start to talk about how to fix this.

Agreed, I think you should send back this comment to the group ASAP.


> - About comment #3
> 
> Note that this means that Level ***AA*** conformance (per 1.4.5) [3], not AAA as is stated at the response, could not be achieved if you wanted to preserve look and feel beyond logotypes.
> 
> IMO, taking into consideration the limitations of the current "state of the art" for fonts representation on the Web, this is a serious backward step in the effort of accessibility and business needs reconciliation, as almost no business will be able to be Level AA conformant without renouncing to their look & feel guidelines.
> 
> I wouldn't go this way if there is a good use case to consider this a serious barrier to be addressed at level AA (I don't think it is if the image has a minimum size, e.g. 200% of the base size, and a proper alternative).

I disagree, and think that it is a serious barrier to many people. I 
have not seen many images of text that are 200% of the base font size.


> - About comment #4
> 
> Apparently the group agrees on the fact that in a case like this it's not the author responsibility, nevertheless, the current wording, especially F10 [4] and G21 [5], say the opposite.
> 
> Maybe, as we concluded in a previous teleconference, a reference that points people to some background information for SCs to which user agent functionality plays a role would help.

Good point. I think it relates to how WCAG 2.0 conformance is designed 
around accessibility-supported technologies, while the Techniques only 
address specific technologies. However, I think that these Techniques 
could indeed be made clearer. Please send this feedback to the group.


> - About comment #7
> 
> According to the group response you're not allowed to use look-alike controls with CSS and scripts until ARIA is done if you want to be Level A conformant. Is this what they really want?

If the role and states of these look-alikes are not programtically 
determinable, then they are effectively inaccessible to asssistive 
technologies. In this case I would agree that such a Web application 
would not meet basic accessibility requirements (Level A).


> - About comment #9
> 
> As I would bet for people using logos, even is none is provided by WAI, it would be nice to include an explicit note with their clarification:
> 
> "If a logo is used, it would constitute a claim and should be accompanied by the same information required for a conformance claim." 

If a logo is used for what? I can put any logo I want on my site/page, 
and no one, except for the logo owner, can say what it means. The 
question is really if WAI will provide a logo at some point.


> - About comment #10
> 
> If I understood correctly the WG acknowledge the dependence on accessibility supported web technologies lists, but they hope to compile this information during CR period.
> 
> This may need further follow-up, as the absence of such a list will make WCAG 2 unusable, making thus impossible to reach REC state. Still think that the provision of a simple wide "baseline" accessibility supported web technologies list by the WG is the easiest and simplest solution.

This is indeed an important (and complicated) discussion. I would not 
say that WCAG 2.0 can not proceed to REC without such lists, but it 
would certainly be something nice to have.


Thanks for your effort on this Carlos!


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 19:01:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 March 2008 19:01:17 GMT