Issue Summary - Web Unit

There are 23 issues that relate to "Web unit."

1.) Twelve issues include proposed resolutions, but require a decision 
on exactly which term should be used and what the definition should be.

2.) Two of the issues require further discussion about "sets" of the 
term mentioned above.

3.) Seven of the items have already been closed and should not need 
additional consideration beyond updates per aforementioned decisions.

Refer to the results of the 05 October survey <http://tinyurl.com/jo7xd> 
for additional comments and discussion.

Here are the issues:


    Open Issues


      *Comment LC-514*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT alternate-versions
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* accessible-alternatives-level1 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#accessible-alternatives-level1> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

This criterion refers to the possibility of other versions of the 
content being available from the same URI. However, if the content 
consists of multiple Web units, there is no single URI from which the 
content as a whole is available, since each Web unit included in the 
content (i.e., within the scope of conformance) has its own URI.

Proposed Change:

Change "the content" to "each Web unit in the content", since the 
requirement applies at the level of the individual Web unit rather than 
to the content as a single entity. Equivalent language may be employed 
to achieve this; the above is just a suggestion.

*Status:* open

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB] [HOLD]

Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: put 514 and 515 on hold pending resolution of web unit issues.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html

*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
{accept}

@@Modify proposal for LC-465 to say:
When multiple versions of the same content of a Web unit are available, 
at least one version meets all level 1 success criteria. Any version 
that does not meet all level 1 success criteria provides a mechanism to 
obtain a version that does, and that mechanism meets all level 1 success 
criteria.

@@Response to commenter
We have modified SC 4.2.1 to clarify that the content is on a Web unit 
basis.

*Related Issues:*
LC-515 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-515>
LC-465 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-465>
LC-466 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-466>
LC-545 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-545>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-14 21:39:50

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-515*

*Sort Terms:* alternate-versions WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* accessible-alternatives-level2 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#accessible-alternatives-level2> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

See my comment on sc 4.2.1, which applies here too.

Proposed Change:

*Status:* open

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB] [HOLD]

Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: put 514 and 515 on hold pending resolution of web unit issues.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html

*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
{accept}

SEE ACTION FOR LC-514

@@Response to commenter:
We have changed SC 4.2.1 to clarify that content is on a Web unit basis.

*Related Issues:*
LC-514 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-514>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-14 21:39:20

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Pending Issues


      *Comment LC-711*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT set-of-web-units
*Document:* Techniques Document
*Submitter:* Chris Ridpath 
<chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>     *Affiliation:* ATRC University of Toronto
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* F31 <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/#F31> (Description)

*Comment:*
Part of Item: Description
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The \"set of web units\" is not defined. Does this include every single 
page?

Proposed Change:

Define which pages of the site must have this. Or describe exclusions.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB] [EDITORZ]

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Sent back to Team for further discussion.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

<previous proposal>
@@Change title of F31 to
Failure of SC 3.2.4 due to using two different labels for the same 
function on different web units of a web site.

@@Add definition of web site to the Glossary:
Web site: A collection of interconnected web units that are maintained 
by a single entity, such as an individual, group, or organization.

@@Response to commenter
We have changed the title of the failure to indicate that the web units 
are part of the same web site.
</previous proposal>

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

@@Change title of F31 to
Failure of SC 3.2.4 due to using two different labels for the same 
function on different Web pages within a set of Web pages
[THIS ITEM ON HOLD] @@ replace all instances of "authored unit" with 
"set of Web pages" (note that this will require extensive editorial 
cleanup in the introduction)
@@ revise SC 3.2.2 to read, "3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any 
user interface component does not automatically cause a change of 
context unless the [Web page] or [set of Web pages] contains 
instructions before the component that describe the behavior.

@@ define "set of Web pages" in the Glossary:
collection of [Web pages] created as a single body by an author, group 
or organization.
Example: Web pages intended to be viewed as a group or in a specific 
sequence.

[THIS ITEM ON HOLD] @@ replace "set of Web units" with "set of Web 
pages" and reference definition.

@@ revise 3.2.3 to read, "3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational 
mechanisms that are repeated within a [set of Web pages] occur in the 
same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is 
initiated by the user.

@@Response to commenter
We have changed the title of the failure to indicate that the web units 
are part of the same set of web pages.

*Related Issues:*
LC-916 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-916>
LC-983 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-983>
*Assigned To:* Loretta Guarino Reid
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-12 22:15:24

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-808*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Robert Whittaker <robert.whittaker@gmail.com>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* glossary <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#glossary> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The terminology for \"authored unit\", \"authored component\", \"web 
unit\" seems rather excessive, and potentially confusing. Can it be 
simplified with fewer (and perhaps more natural) terms?

Proposed Change:

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]


@@ remove "authored component"
Rationale: it is used in 2.2.2, 2.4.6 and 4.1.1, but since an authored 
component is a subset of a Web unit, the term is not needed.

2.2.2 Blinking: Content does not blink for more than three seconds, or a 
method is available to stop all blinking content in the Web unit or 
authored component.

2.4.6 Focus Order: When a Web unit or authored component is navigated 
sequentially, components receive focus in an order that follows 
relationships and sequences in the content.

4.1.1 Parsing: Web units or authored components can be parsed 
unambiguously, and the relationships in the resulting data structure are 
also unambiguous.

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept partial}

Refer to 1217 for related actions.

@@ remove the term "authored component" and revise the following SC to 
read (remove "or authored component"):

2.2.2 Blinking: Content does not blink for more than three seconds, or a 
method is available to stop all blinking content in the Web page.

2.4.6 Focus Order: When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components 
receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in 
the content.

4.1.1 Parsing: Web pages can be parsed unambiguously, and the 
relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous.

@@ replace "authored component" with "Web page" for sufficient 
techniques situations in both 3.1.3 and 3.1.4.

Respond with:
We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have 
reformulated the success criteria and glossary to remove both "authored 
unit" and "authored component" from the guidelines.

*Related Issues:*
1217 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1217>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:48:55

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-862*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT conformance
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* text-equiv 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#text-equiv> 

*Comment:*
 From 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0119.html 


Nobody can understand what the hell a ""Web unit"" is. In the following 
explanation -

A Web unit conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level only if all 
content provided by that Web unit (including any secondary resources 
that are rendered as part of the Web unit) conforms at that level.

- what happens if I have a page full of thumbnail images, each with 
correct alt text as required and each of which links to an image file of 
a larger version of the picture? Since the image by itself has no HTML 
or other markup, it's impossible to write an alt text for it. Is this 
not a ""secondary resource""? If it isn't, does it not then constitute a 
""Web unit"" unto itself? Since Web units that are simple image files 
cannot be made accessible, doesn't WCAG 2 essentially ban freestanding 
image files?

(We are later told that linking to nonconforming content ""is not 
prohibited"" - gee, thanks - but only if ""the content itself is [INS: 
[not] :INS] a Web unit within the set of URIs to which the conformance 
claim applies."" Hence if my freestanding image is still hosted on my 
site, I have to make it comply with my conformance claim, which at the 
very least requires a text equivalent, in turn meaning I have to wrap 
the image file in HTML. But by the time you the site visitor have 
selected and loaded that expanded image, you will already have had a 
chance to read the alt text on the thumbnail image.)

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{question answered}
@@ delete, "Linking to non-conforming content is not prohibited." from 
Note 1 under "Scoping of conformance claims."
@@ revise the bullets under note 1 to read:
* the content is rendered as a part of the Web page, or
* the content is a Web page within the set of URIs to which the 
conformance claim applies, or
* the content is a Web unit that is the result of, or a step in, a 
process containing content for which a claim is made.


Respond with:
We have modified the term "Web unit" to "Web page" and have updated the 
definition. The statement you refer to is intended to clarify that
conformance claims for a given URI include resources such as images that 
are not "Web pages."

In your example, a valid conformance claim for the thumbnails page would 
need to specify the URI of the content in the claim. For example, a 
conformance claim about http://example.com/gallery.htm would apply only 
to "gallery.htm" and not to the individual images which happen to be 
rendered as secondary resources to the aforementioned URI. In other 
words, the images by themselves are not secondary resources unless 
rendered as part of a Web page for which a conformance claim is being 
made. If large images are to be displayed directly, they must be 
included as part of an accessible Web page when displayed or they could 
not be included in a conformance claim.

We have updated the note in question to address these concerns.

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:01

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-895*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>     *Affiliation:* 
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* intro 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#intro> (Important Terms)

*Comment:*
it would be useful to read an example of web unit that is NOT a web page.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB][EDITORZ]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept, but otherwise addressed}

We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have modified 
the section on new terms to describe our use of the term "Web page" in 
greater detail. We have also added an example of content that may not 
immediately be recognized as a "Web page."

*Related Issues:*
1263 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1263>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:06

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-916*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT set-of-web-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>     *Affiliation:* 
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* consistent-behavior-consistent-locations 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#consistent-behavior-consistent-locations> 

*Comment:*
the criterion is ambiguous/or even empty: one could always be conformant 
to this by saying that the set of web resources consists merely of the 
webunits that share the same order. So if on my website I put the same 5 
links in different orders within the pages, they are still ok with 323, 
because each web page makes its own set of webunits.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB] [EDITORZ]

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Sent back to Team for further discussion.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}
@@ see 711 for related actions

Response to commenter:
We have revised this success criterion to reference a "set of Web pages" 
and have included a definition for that term.

*Related Issues:*
LC-711 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-711>
LC-983 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-983>
*Assigned To:* Loretta Guarino Reid
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:15

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-929*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>     *Affiliation:* IBM
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:* glossary 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#glossary> (Web Unit)

*Comment:*
The definition of Web unit may not work for SVG.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

We have modified the term "Web unit" to be "Web page" and have updated 
the definition to use "rendered as a single unit" rather than "rendered 
together."

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:21

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-983*

*Sort Terms:* set-of-web-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* consistent-behavior-consistent-functionality 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#consistent-behavior-consistent-functionality> ("a 
set of web units")

*Comment:*
Without some restriction on what set is meant, this success criterion is 
meaningless. But for what you want to say, it can be fixed.

Proposed Change:

"the Web units comprising the scope of a conformance claim"

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB][EDITORZ]
Scope of conformance claim means that if claims are made for individual 
web units, this never needs to be satisfied.

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Sent back to Team for further discussion.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

see 711 for related actions

@@In the Intent section of How To Meet SC 3.2.3, change "in a set of Web 
units" to "within a set of Web pages"

@@Response to commenter:
We have revised this success criterion to reference a "set of Web pages" 
and have included a definition for that term.

*Related Issues:*
LC-711 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-711>
LC-916 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-916>
*Assigned To:* Loretta Guarino Reid
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:29

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1193*

*Sort Terms:* set-of-web-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* navigation-mechanisms-location 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#navigation-mechanisms-location> ("location 
within a set of Web units")

*Comment:*
Clause is trivially vague. It will either be satisfied or inapplicable, 
because there is no standard for what set of Web units is pertinent.

Proposed Change:

Introduce concepts of breadcrumb trail as vertical thread through topic 
categories from here to home and task-phase bar as steps in a sequential 
process. If one is in a sequential process, need latter to get credit; 
else former. Because of former, never 'not applicable.' Location within 
site is always applicable and desirable.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB][EDITORZ]
We should enable mixing and matches of techniques within the same web 
site, e.g., a site map for overall structure, but a task-phase bar for a 
section of the site that must be processed sequentially. Does this need 
clarification in the How To Meet document?

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
1193 leave open til we resolve "set of web units" topic.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

@@G128: Change Description to:
"The objective of this technique is to help orient the user by providing 
information about the current location via the navigational user 
interface component. This technique is especially useful when the Web 
pages are steps in a task that must be processed in order. Providing 
this indication helps the user to better understand his place in the 
sequence. The location may be indicated by adding an icon or text, or by 
changing the state of the item."

@@Response to commenter:
We have revised the success criterion and have added a definition to the 
glossary for "set of Web pages." We have also modified the description 
of G128: Indicating current location within navigation bars to clarify 
that this technique is particularly appropriate for sequential tasks.

*Related Issues:*
LC-1113 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1113>
*Assigned To:* Loretta Guarino Reid
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:36

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1217*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* glossary 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#glossary> (Web Unit)

*Comment:*
One can reasonably interpret what the Web Characterization Terminology 
meant by "simultaneously" to mean "concurrently." The point is that your 
concept is their concept, you are just straining at gnats over the term 
'simultaneously' as if it implies 'instantaneously.'

You just don't know how much street cred you lose by using funny-money 
terms like "web unit" when what you mean is what the web designer means 
by a "web page."

Proposed Change:

Use "web page."

State that the concept is essentially the same as in the Web 
Characterization Terminology.

Add something on the order of "Owing to the increasingly dynamic nature 
of web pages today, one would be more likely to say 'rendered 
concurrently' rather than 'rendered simultaneously' so people don't 
think that there has to be an instant rendering of a static page. The 
requirement is that fluctuations in the page view take place in a 
context which is stable enough so that the user's perception is that 
they are in the same place.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

The proposal below changes "rendered together" to "rendered as a single 
unit" and adds the clarifying second sentence from the Web 
Characterization Activity as a note. It also includes some editorial 
cleanup to the first example.

Rationale: Al's assertion that this can reasonably interpreted as we're 
using it is correct. Given slight modifications made by DI WG (sets 
precedent for making slight modifications to existing definitions) and 
that the second sentence of the original definition says "rendered as a 
single unit," it does not seem that this is an unreasonable 
interpretation given the changes that have occurred on the Web since the 
definition was written.

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

@@ replace "Web unit" with "Web page" throughout.
@@ define "Web page" as follows:
a collection of information consisting of one or more resources intended 
to be rendered as a single unit and identified by a single Uniform 
Resource Identifier (URI)
Note: More specifically, a Web page consists of a resource with zero, 
one, or more embedded resources intended to be rendered as a single 
unit, and referred to by the URI of the one resource which is not embedded.
Note: This definition is based on the definition of Web page in the Web 
Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet.
Example 1: An interactive or immersive environment addressable via a 
single URI.
Example 2: A Web resource and its embedded images and media.

Respond with:
We have modified the term "Web unit" to be "Web page" and have updated 
the definition to use "rendered as a single unit" rather than "rendered 
simultaneously." We agree with your assertion that this definition can 
reasonably interpreted to meet the needs of the guidelines and have 
updated the definition and notes accordingly.

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:45

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1241*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Henny Swan <henny.swan@rnib.org.uk>     *Affiliation:* 
Royal National Institute of the Blind
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* new-terms <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#new-terms> 

*Comment:*
Comment: Where it states "The broader term was chosen because it covers 
Web applications and other types of content to which the word "page" may 
not apply" it gives no example of a "web unit" that is not a "web page".

Proposed Change:

Provide an example of a "web unit" that is not a web page.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{resolved}

@@ replace the 2nd paragraph of "Important new terms.." with a paragraph 
at the end of the section that reads:

While not an entirely new term, it is important to note that the term 
"Web page" has evolved to accommodate the increasingly dynamic nature of 
content. A Web page is any collection of information consisting of one 
or more resources intended to be rendered as a single unit and 
identified by a single Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). It includes 
Web applications, webcasts, multimedia objects and other types of 
interactive content to which the word "page" may not typically apply. It 
is in this evolved sense of the concept that the term is used in WCAG 2.0.
Example: An interactive, movie-like resource where the user navigates 
through a virtual environment, interacts with products to have them 
demonstrated or to learn more about them, and then moves them to a cart 
to buy them would be considered a "Web page." "


Respond with.
We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have modified 
this section to describe our use of the term in greater detail. We have 
also added an example of content that may not immediately be recognized 
as a "Web page."

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-05 00:39:49

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1263*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Andrew Arch 
<andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org>     *Affiliation:* Vision Australia
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* intro <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#intro> (New 
Terms)

*Comment:*
Comment: the term 'web unit' needs some examples about when the term 
'web page' may not apply

Proposed Change:

add some examples to "..may not apply" such as 'webcast' or 'multimedia 
object'

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{resolved}

We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have modified 
the section on new terms to describe our use of the term "Web page" in 
greater detail. We have also added an example of content that may not 
immediately be recognized as a "Web page."

*Related Issues:*
1241 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1241>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:49:55

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1410*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* David Keech <david.keech@bsi-global.com> 
<>     *Affiliation:* British Standards Instution, London, UK
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:*  

*Comment:*
3. WCAG defines a "web unit" as "one or more resources, intended to be 
rendered together, and identified by a single Uniform Resource 
Identifier ". Resources can in addition consist of moving images, or 
pages where part of the material is rendered through links into Web 
Services (such as with AJAX technology). The example given in the 
definition is static in nature - however in many situations in today's 
web the end result is not static, or defined solely by a single URI.

This appears to be clarified for a web unit in the section "Conformance 
claims" - where it states that it "can also take the form of a fully 
interactive and immersive environment"

However the situation becomes confused by later referring to "Aggregated 
content" and giving, as an example of this, "a web unit which is 
assembled from multiple sources that may or may not have their own 
levels of conformance". In a traditional web page, containing graphics, 
(as is given as an example in the definition of a "web unit"), this is 
conventionally exactly how images etc are rendered using the <IMG> tag.

Statements such as "The conformance level for a Web unit that contains 
authored units is equal to the lowest conformance level claimed for the 
Web unit content and any of the authored units it contains -- including 
any claims pertaining to aggregated authored units" are extremely 
unclear, and indeed may be recursive following the unclear distinction 
apparently made between "web units" and "aggregated content". A "web 
page" on the other hand is fairly well understood. BSI recommend(s) a 
closer look at an accurately defined and understood syntax which is not 
open to misinterpretation and clearly conveys the ideas being communicated.

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]
878 IS PARENT

Issue: If a claim can only be for a Web page, how can a claim for 
aggregated content exist? This section may need additional work.

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{accept}

@@ revise the section "Aggregated content" to read:
Sometimes, a Web unit is assembled ("aggregated") from multiple sources 
that each may or may not have their own level of conformance. They may 
in fact not even be Web pages of any kind - and thus would not, and 
sometimes could not, conform to all of the success criteria by 
themselves. If aggregated content does not carry a conformance claim, 
then the claim must be based on the Web page with the aggregated content 
in place.

Respond with:
We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have modified 
this section to clarify these concerns.

*Related Issues:*
878 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=878>
*Assigned To:* Ben Caldwell
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-05 18:51:46

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1470*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT conformance
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Christophe Strobbe 
<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>     *Affiliation:* Katholieke 
Universiteit Leuven
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* glossary <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#glossary> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: substantive
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The definition of Web unit is still ambiguous.

(1) If an HTML document (home.htm) has various linked stylesheets (one 
for screen, one for print, one for projection, ...), these are not all 
intended to be rendered together. I think the the following would all 
count as Web units:
- home.htm with the CSS for \'screen\',
- home.htm with the CSS for \'projection\',
- home.htm with the CSS for \'braille\',
- home.htm with the CSS for \'aural\',
- ...
However, this is not clear from the definition. If these are all 
different web units, it is also impossible to identify them with a URL, 
because the URL is the same for each.

(2) If an HTML page uses an object element with one or more fallbacks 
nested inside it (see the example slightly below 
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#idx-object-5), 
I think the Web unit you claim conformance for is the HTML document with 
the outermost object element (with the TheEarth.py applet). However, the 
content of each of the nested object elements is not meant to be 
rendered together with the content of all the other object elements. 
Does that mean that there is a different web unit per fallback/nested 
object element?

(3) If a web page uses frames, the content of some of the frames depends 
on the user\'s interaction: e.g. clicking a link in the navigation frame 
opens a different document in the content frame. So the URL that 
identifies the frameset document does not always identify the same Web 
unit, unless the Web unit is limited to what is loaded by default.

(4) If user agent X requests URL http://www.example.com/ with MIME type 
aaa/bbb and user agent Y requests the same URL with MIME type ccc/ddd, 
and they get different web units because of the different MIME type, the 
URL cannot be used to differentiate between the two web units. Does that 
mean these are different Web units according to the current definition?

Most of this was previously discussed on the ERT mailing list in the 
context of conformance claims (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006May/0029.html and 
next messages in the same thread) and forwarded to the GL list 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006AprJun/0181.html).

Proposed Change:

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{resolved partial}
We have modified the term "Web unit" to be "Web page" and have updated 
the definition to use "rendered as a single unit" rather than "rendered 
together." The section titled "Conformance notes" 
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#conformance-notes) includes 
information about content negotiation.

Regarding your concern #3, the definition of Web page is purposefully 
written to include dynamic content that comes from the same URI.

Regarding #4, they would both be the same Web page. If one of the two 
versions does not conform, then it must provide an conformant mechanism 
to get to the version that does.

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:50:09

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1510*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org>     *Affiliation:* 
Educational Testing Service
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* glossary 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#glossary> (def. of Web unit)

*Comment:*
Web unit

[New:]

a collection of information identifiable by a single Uniform Resource 
Identifier (such as a URL) that consists of one or more resources and 
that is intended to be rendered together.

. Example1: A Web page and embedded media
. Example 2: An interactive or immersive environment addressable via a 
single URI.

[OLD version with comments:
"a collection of information, consisting of one or more resources, 
intended to be rendered together[By together, this may be simultaneous, 
or sequentially???], and identified by a single Uniform Resource 
Identifier (such as a URLs[Should both be singular, right?])
[Priority AAAA. I'd like to get greater clarity on this.....]
Note: This definition is based on the definition of Web page in Web 
Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet. The concept of 
simultaneity was removed to allow the term to cover interactive and 
scripted content.
Example 1: An interactive movie-like shopping environment accessed 
through a single URI, where the user navigates about and activates 
products to have them demonstrated, and moves them to a cart to buy 
them.[I thought that the shopping was considered a "process"...]
Example 2: A Web page including all embedded images and media.
[The notion of web unit is key in this document. Any characterization 
that is not explicitly tied into the notion of web unit has no normative 
force...! This included authored unit, authored component, content, 
supplemental content, etc.!] ]

*Status:* Pending WG review (pending).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ]

*Resolution Recommended by Taskforce:*
{resolved partial}
We have modified the term "Web unit" to be "Web page" and have updated 
the definition to match the definition of Web page in the Web 
Characterization Terminology & Definitions Sheet. Because this term is 
used in multiple W3C specs, we can not make significant revisions to the 
definition. We have, however, incorporated your suggestions in the 
examples of the definition of "Web page".

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-04 15:50:21

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Closed Issues


      *Comment LC-501*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* meaning-doc-lang-id 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#meaning-doc-lang-id> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

The content (i.e., everything within the scope of conformance), can and 
in many instances will consist of multiple Web units.

Proposed Change:

Change "the Web unit" to "every Web unit", or "every Web unit within the 
content".

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

Relates to LC-502

Surveyed 5 October 2006 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20061005editorz/results#x501. 
Discussed 12 October. Accepted.

Note: stand-in term [Web page] substituted by [Page unit] during 
discussion, but either way requires further discussion.

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
{accept}

@@ Change Success Criterion 3.1.1.to state read "The default natural 
language of each [Web page] within the content can be programmatically 
determined."

@@ Respond with:
Thank you for your comment. Success Criterion 3.1.1. has been changed to 
read, "The default natural language of each Web page within the content 
can be programmatically determined."

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-12 21:53:25

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-502*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* meaning-other-lang-id 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#meaning-other-lang-id> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

The same as 3.1.1.

Proposed Change:

Change "the Web unit" to "Every Web unit" (or whatever language is 
chosen to clarify this).

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).

*Response Status:* Resolution implemented

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]

Relates to LC-501

BBC: "Web unit" is not needed here because the requirement applies to 
any type of content for which a claim would be made.

Surveyed 5 October 2006 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20061005editorz/results#x502. 
Discussed 12 October. Accepted.

{accept}
DONE Change Success Criterion 3.1.2 to read, "The natural language of 
each passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined."

Internal WD updated 23 October 2006.

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
Thank you for your comment. "Web unit" is not needed here because the 
requirement applies to any type of content for which a claim would be 
made. Success Criterion 3.1.2 has been revised to read, "The natural 
language of each passage or phrase in the content can be 
programmatically determined."

*Related Issues:*
501 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=501>
*Assigned To:* Katie Haritos-Shea
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-23 22:40:35

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-625*

*Sort Terms:* descriptive-titles level-change Set-of web-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>     *Affiliation:* Invited 
expert at W3C, UB access
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* navigation-mechanisms-title 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#navigation-mechanisms-title> (Level 
2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4)

*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Web units have titles, what is the advantage if the titles are not 
descriptive?

Proposed Change:

change to Web units have descriptive titles

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).

*Response Status:* Resolution implemented

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB]
@@ MU: I agree with this comment. 2.4.3 requires just the page title and 
2.4.5 requires the descriptive page title. Why don't we require the 
descriptive page title at L2 SC(2.4.3)? In my opinion, the 
non-descriptive page title means nothing. Additionally I'd like to put 
the descriptive page title to L1 SC. See also LC-626.

LGR: Background: the June 2005 WCAG2 draft had "Delivery units have 
descriptive titles". This was changed as a result of the 13 October 2005 
Team B Survey, 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20051012teamb/results#xdestitle 
which was primarily focused on issues of what to say about document 
structure and making headings descriptive.

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Resolution: Team B Take back LC-625, LC-626: descriptive titles (look at 
G88)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

LGR: are there security issues with exposing sensitive personal 
information in Web unit titles?

Discussed in the 31 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept LC-625, LC-626, LC-1105, LC-1141, LC-1291: 
Descriptive titles as amended
action: Loretta to add language to the appropriate responses that 
explains why we are not adding "unique"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html

{accept}

DONE Change SC 2.4.3 to "Web units have descriptive titles."

DONE In the first sentence of the Intent section of SC 2.4.3, change 
"title" to "descriptive title".

DONE Delete technique G7: Associating a title with a Web page

DONE Remove from advisory techniques for SC 2.4.3: G88: Providing 
descriptive titles for Web units

DONE Change sufficient technique for Addressing Success Criterion 2.4.3 
to "G88: Providing descriptive titles for Web units and associating a 
title with a Web unit USING a technology-specific technique below (for a 
technology in your baseline)

DONE Remove from SC 2.4.3 Examples:
#An audio file.
A podcast is associated with the title "Today's Tech Tips" by setting 
the id3 property of the .mp3 file.
#A video clip.
A video clip is associated with a title using the meta element in SMIL 
1.0 or SMIL 2.0, plus the title attribute of the main par element in the 
SMIL file.
#An image.
A .JPEG image is associated with a title using EXIF metadata stored in 
the image file. (Note: Current user agents do not read this metadata.)

DONE Add example to How to Meet SC 2.4.3:
*A web application.
A banking application lets a user inspect his bank accounts, view past 
statements, and perform transactions. The web application dynamically 
generates titles for each Web unit, e.g., "Bank XYZ, accounts for John 
Smith" "Bank XYZ, December 2005 statement for Account 1234-5678".

DONE Change SC 2.4.5 to "Headings and labels are descriptive."

DONE Change SC 2.4.5 Intent section from "When titles and headings are 
clear and descriptive" to "When headings are clear and descriptive"

DONE Remove G88: Providing descriptive titles for Web units from 
sufficient techniques for SC 2.4.5

DONE Change Note on SC 2.4.5 to "Note: Headings and labels must be 
programmatically determined, per success criterion 1.3.1."

DONE Change Benefits of SC 2.4.5 to
"Descriptive headings and labels are especially helpful for users who 
have disabilities that make reading slow and for people with limited 
short-term memory. These people benefit when section headings make it 
possible to predict what each section contains.

This success criterion helps people who use screen readers by ensuring 
that labels and headings are meaningful when read out of context, for 
example, in a Table of Contents, or when jumping from heading to heading 
within a page.

This success criterion may also help users with low vision who can see 
only a few words at a time."

DONE Remove from SC 2.4.5:
Technology-Specific Techniques
HTML Techniques
* H64: Using the title attribute of the frame element

DONE Move the following resources from SC 2.4.5 to SC 2.4.3:
#Guidelines for Accessible and Usable Web Sites: Observing Users Who 
Work With Screen Readers. Theofanos, M.F., and Redish, J. (2003). 
Interactions, Volume X, Issue 6, November-December 2003, pages 38-51, 
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/947226.947227.
#Writing Better Web Page Titles How to write titles for Web pages that 
will enhance search engine effectiveness.

Internal WD updated 1 September 2006.

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
We have changed SC 2.4.3 to "Web units have descriptive titles" and have 
also reflected this change in success criterion 2.4.5 and support 
documents for both success criteria.

*Related Issues:*
626 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=626>
838 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=838>
839 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=839>
1052 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1052>
1141 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1141>
1289 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1289>
1291 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1291>
*Assigned To:* Makoto Ueki
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-01 16:10:01

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-626*

*Sort Terms:* Set-of web-units descriptive-titles Set-of web-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>     *Affiliation:* Invited 
expert at W3C, UB access
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* navigation-mechanisms-title 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#navigation-mechanisms-title> (Level 
3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4)

*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

surely this only helps if titles are unique -any objection to unique 
should not apply at level 3

Proposed Change:

change to Web units have descriptive and unique titles

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).

*Response Status:* Resolution implemented

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB]
@@ MU: I also agree this comment in addition to LC-625.
JIS has a guideline which reads "A page shall have a title which enables 
users to identify content of the page." as 5.2 e). This requires the 
page title to be descriptive and unique within the website. Finally I'd 
like to change 2.4.3 to "Web units have descriptive and unique titles" 
and also changed 2.4.5 to "Headings and labels are descriptive".
Is there any reason to have 2 levels of criteria about the page 
title(title for web unit)??

LGR: Background: the June 2005 WCAG2 draft had "Delivery units have 
descriptive titles". This was changed as a result of the 13 October 2005 
Team B Survey, 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20051012teamb/results#xdestitle 
which was primarily focused on issues of what to say about document 
structure and making headings descriptive.

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Resolution: Team B Take back LC-625, LC-626: descriptive titles (look at 
G88)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

Discussed in the 31 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept LC-625, LC-626, LC-1105, LC-1141, LC-1291: 
Descriptive titles as amended
action: Loretta to add language to the appropriate responses that 
explains why we are not adding "unique"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html

{accept}

SEE ACTIONS FOR LC-625

DONE Loretta to add language to the appropriate responses that explains 
why we are not adding "unique"

The following actions are for G88:

DONE Remove references to Success Criterion 2.4.5 (Labels Descriptive), 
How to Meet Success Criterion 2.4.5

DONE Add after second sentence of description:

A descriptive title allows a user to easily identify what Web unit they 
are using and to tell when the Web unit has changed.

DONE Remove from Description:

"These techniques benefit all users. They are especially helpful for 
users with disabilities that make reading slow, and for people with 
limited short-term memory. People who have difficulty using their hands 
or who experience pain when doing so will benefit from techniques that 
reduce the number of keystrokes required to reach the content they need."

DONE Change:

"The title of each Web unit that can be accessed separately should:"

to

"The title of each Web unit should:"

DONE Add to "may also be helpful" list:

- Be unique within the site or other resource to which the Web unit belongs

Internal WD updated 5 Sept.

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
We have changed SC 2.4.3 to "Web units have descriptive titles" and have 
also reflected this change in success criterion 2.4.5 and support 
documents for both success criteria.

The success criterion does not require that titles be unique because the 
working group is concerned that requiring uniqueness will lead to titles 
that are not as descriptive and usable. It may be very difficult to 
create titles that are descriptive, unique, and reasonably short. For 
example, a Web unit that generates titles dynamically based on its 
content might need to include part of the dynamic content in the title 
to ensure that it was unique. We are also concerned that authors may 
make titles unique mechanically, such as by including a unique number in 
the title that is unrelated to the content. For these reasons, although 
we encourage unique titles in the techniques for this SC, we are not 
including uniqueness in the SC itself.

*Related Issues:*
LC-625 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-625>
LC-838 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-838>
LC-839 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-839>
LC-971 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-971>
LC-1052 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1052>
LC-1141 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1141>
LC-1289 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1289>
LC-1291 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1291>
*Assigned To:* Loretta Guarino Reid
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-05 18:49:38

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-746*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org>     *Affiliation:* 
Educational Testing Service
*Comment Type:* question
*Location:* navigation-mechanisms-title 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#navigation-mechanisms-title> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

2.4.3 Web units have titles.

The How to Meet material seems to view Web units as pages, but the 
definition is really broader....

Proposed Change:

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_partial).

*Response Status:* Response drafted

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB]
ive in their own right, such as "report.html" or "spk12.html""
The "Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.3" references other web units 
such as audio, video, images.
So the SC does not focus solely on web pages - not accept comment?

Issue discussed on 27 June 2006 Team B meeting and it was decided to 
assign this comment to the web_unit group of comments and to put this 
issue on hold.
The How To Meet material references a "An interactive movie-like 
shopping environment where the user navigates about and activates 
products to have them demonstrated, and moves them to a cart to buy them"

Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept Issue LC-746, Issue LC-1106 and Issue LC-1107 as 
modified to add "web unit" at the end.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html

Partial Accept

SEE ACTIONS FOR LC-625

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
Thank you for catching this. We have removed the examples that are not 
Web units and added an example of a Web application Web unit.

*Related Issues:*
LC-625 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-625>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-18 23:31:02

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-749*

*Sort Terms:* WEB-UNIT authored-units
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org>     *Affiliation:* 
Educational Testing Service
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* accessible-alternatives-level1 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#accessible-alternatives-level1> 

*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

4.2.1 At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success 
criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 1 success 
criteria may be available from the same URI.

With all the effort to define terms like Web unit, authored unit, 
authored component, do we really need another term "content"?

Proposed Change:

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_partial).

*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD] Reject comment to leave out 
"content" term. Does the glossary need further explanation?

Web unit: a collection of information, consisting of one or more 
resources, intended to be rendered together, and identified by a single 
Uniform Resource Identifier (such as URLs)

Authored unit: set of material created as a single body by an author

authored component: an authored unit intended to be used as a part of 
another authored unit.

content: information to be communicated to the user by means of a user 
agent.

Discussed in the 05 October 2006 telecon:
accepted by unanimous consent
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/10/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
{resolved partial}
@@ Respond with:
The term "content" is important to define because it defines the scope 
of information that the WCAG guidelines can apply to. The term is used 
in multiple places throughout the guidelines and success criteria. We 
have, however, replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have 
reformulated the success criteria and glossary to remove both "authored 
unit" and "authored component" from the guidelines.

*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-05 21:14:12

**

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      *Comment LC-1113*

*Sort Terms:* set-of-web-units
*Document:* Understanding WCAG 2.0
*Submitter:* Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:* navigation-mechanisms-location 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-location> 

*Comment:*
Small sites: What if a site is only three pages - is it still required 
to provide a breadcrumb trail etc?

Proposed Change:

Clarify SC

*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).

*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMB]
Sent to survey 17 Aug. Edited for comments, 18 Aug. We still need to 
resolve the "set of web units" issue.

Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: 1113 back to team B
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.htm

Discussed in the 31 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept LC-1113 as proposed
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}

*Resolution - Pending Response:*
Even for a small site, understanding your location within the site is 
desirable. This SC does not intend to suggest that breadcrumbs are 
required of all web sites. Breadcrumbs are merely one option for meeting 
this Success Criteria. It might be more appropriate to use one of the 
other listed techniques. There may also be techniques that are 
appropriate for orienting a user on a small web site that would not be 
appropriate on a large web site.

*Related Issues:*
LC-1193 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=LC-1193>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-01 20:52:11

**

-- 
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> 
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu> 

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 03:58:33 UTC