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: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:34:26 +0200
Message-ID: <47F0BE32.4040204@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Yes, I think we've waited for input. CarlosI, please send as agreed...

Thanks,
   Shadi


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> 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 I'm think you are using a reference to an outdated version of the Quick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 |
> 

-- 
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 10:35:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 March 2008 10:35:00 GMT