- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:57:52 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teama@w3.org, public-wcag-teamb@w3.org, public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <453EE0C0.3060405@trace.wisc.edu>
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 03:58:30 UTC