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

RE: Draft response to the WCAG WG

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:51:50 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281903311009@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>


Hi,

> You are right, thanks for catching this. I'm OK with your third (lucky)
> draft. Let's wait to see if others have additional input...

The WCAG WG expects replies by 31 March, so we should try to move on ASAP to avoid unnecessary delay in the REC track.

May I send the reply now or is there any other additional suggestion?

Regards,
 CI.


> Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> > Hi Shadi,
> >
> >> 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:
> >
> > I'm think you are using a reference to an outdated version of the Quick
> Reference document based on the 11 December 2007 draft, as you can see at
> the introduction section [1]. The current editor's draft [2] has been
> updated and now is in alignment with the techniques document.
> >
> > [1] -
> [http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20071211/Overview.php#intro]
> > [2] - [http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20080310/Overview.php#qr-
> visual-audio-contrast-visual-presentation]
> >
> > Everything else is perfect for me, so I just propose minor changes in
> the related paragraph (highlighted below):
> >
> >
> > ****** DRAFT RESPONSE, third time lucky? ******
> >
> > SUBJECT LINE: ERT WG clarification on comments by Carlos Iglesias (CTIC)
> on SC 1.4.8
> >
> > Dear WCAG WG,
> >
> > This message is a follow-up clarification on the exchange between Carlos
> Iglesias 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 [2] describes Technique C20 "Using relative measurements to set
> column widths so that lines can average 80 characters or less when the
> browser is resized" [3] as a Sufficient Technique to meet this
> requirement, but we do not think satisfies it. ***
> >
> > 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/20080310/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,
> >  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
> >
> >>
> >> ****** 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ****************************
> >>>
> >
> 
> --
> 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, 31 March 2008 09:52:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 March 2008 09:52:23 GMT