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

Re: Draft response to the WCAG WG

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:28:01 +0100
Message-ID: <47EA95B1.6020100@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for getting this started. I think we should also mention that we 
do not fully understand the "Sufficient Techniques" section of the Quick 
Reference document for this Success Criteria. I also think that we need 
to add some context as to why ERT WG is suddenly responding to an issue 
that was raised by CTIC (just to clarify what has been going on).

Below is an suggested update for your consideration. Note that I also 
updated your signature to include CTIC since your initial comments were 
sent on their behalf:


****** DRAFT RESPONSE 2 ******

SUBJECT LINE: ERT WG clarification on comments by Carlos Iglesis (CTIC) 
on SC 1.4.8

Dear WCAG WG,

This message is a follow-up clarification on the exchange between Carlos 
Iglesis and WCAG WG on SC 1.4.8 [1]. While these comments were initially 
sent on behalf of CTIC, the ERT WG has been following the discussion and 
has also discussed some of the issues from an evaluator's perspective.

After a closer review of this issue regarding a width of 80 characters, 
the ERT WG has come to the conclusion that this requirement could be 
adequately tested using manual procedures. For example by resizing the 
browser window and counting the characters, as you suggested.

So the problem we see is not so much with the requirement itself, but 
with the associated techniques. More concretely, the Quick Reference 
document describes "Using ems to set the column width" as a Sufficient 
Technique to meet this requirement [2]. We suspect that this refers to 
the Technique C20 [3], which we do not think satisfies the requirement.

We also do not fully understand what WCAG WG means with the first option 
"Not interfering with the user agent's reflow of text as the viewing 
window is narrowed (General, Future Link)" and can therefore not judge 
how easy it would be to test for the overall requirement. We do however 
acknowledge that the Quick Reference and Techniques documents are still 
under development, and that they will be refined in the future.

To summarize, we have no objections to the responses of WCAG WG made on 
the Success Criteria level, and think that WCAG 2.0 can proceed with the 
provision as currently stated. We do however want to raise an issue on 
the techniques layer, which we believe needs further work to facilitate 
the evaluation of this specific 80-character requirement.

[1] - 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0092.html>
[2] - 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20071211/Overview.php#qr-visual-audio-contrast-visual-presentation>
[3] - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/C20.html>

Thanks again for your hard work on this,
  CI on behalf of the ERT WG and CTIC


****************************


Regards,
   Shadi



Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> 
> Hi group,
> 
> As per my action item from the last teleconference here you have a
> draft response for the WCAG WG on the 80 characters per line issue.
> 
> Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a response to their last
> message:
> 
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0092.html]
> 
> 
> Please let me know if it properly reflects the group view on the
> matter.
> 
> 
> ****** DRAFT RESPONSE ******
> 
> Dear WCAG WG,
> 
> After a closer review of this issue from the ERT WG [1] we came to
> the conclusion that this Requirement can be properly tested using
> manual procedures, so the problem is not with the Requirement, but
> with the associated techniques, more concretely with C20 [2], the
> examples and the test procedure proposed in there.
> 
> We think the aforementioned technique need further clarification and
> refinement, so we will keep looking for its advance and may be
> commenting on it in the future.
> 
> The group doesn't think any additional change to the associated
> Success Criterion is needed.
> 
> [1] - [http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/] [2] -
> [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/C20.html]
> 
> Thanks again for your hard work on this, CI on behalf of the ERT WG
> 
> 
> ****************************
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 26 March 2008 18:28:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 March 2008 18:28:42 GMT