Edits to WCAG2ICT candidate second public version from 7 Dec 2012

Below are disposition of edits made in response to task force feedback
in the 7 December 2012 survey (version retrieved at 17:00 UTC on 7 Dec
2012):

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/W2IDRAFT2/results

I am copying through the suggested edits as quoted text, then including
my disposition. To simplify the email view, I am not naming the person
who suggested the edit, unless it is relevant to my discussion of the
edit or further discussion needed. I am also not including "+1"
comments, repeated similar comments, and the like. I have included
headers to parallel the survey organization (<h2> in the HTML view, not
sure how they come through in the text view).

There are a mix of simple indications that I made a change, to requests
from the TF for input, to commentary from me. The requests for input and
commentary will be stuff we'll need to go over on Tuesday.


    Abstract and Status

> The same paragraph in the Status concerning WCAG 2.0 specific
> comments: In addition to Loic's proposed change, we should remove the
> statement: 'Alternatively, you may send them to the e-mail address
> above.' since our responses to previous WCAG 2.0 comments we said to
> submit these to the WCAG 2.0 working group.
This is pending discussion between Judy and me.
> Missing space between URL and parenthesis in 2nd paragraph of Status:
> "...which is part of the Web Accessibility Initiative(WAI) of the
> World Wide Web Consortium..."
Fixed.
> Status. Paragraph starting with "The focus of this review ...". In
> this paragraph the draft refers to the text "Additional guidance on…",
> but in the document we use "Additional guidance when applying...". We
> have to be consistent here.
Fixed.


    Introduction

> Not sure if you typically always include the link when external
> documents are mentioned. If you do, in the Excluded from scope
> section, the 2nd bullet also refers to the 'Understanding WCAG 2.0
> document' which should be have a link.
Generally, I try to do this on first mention of a document, though it
varies whether I count "first mention" for the document as a whole or
for particular sections. In this case, it does make sense to me to link
to Understanding at the first mention in the Introduction sentence.
However, the first mention is a couple paragraphs before the Excluded
from Scope section, so I put the link there instead.
>
> Document overview section 2nd paragraph: Didn't we also at one point
> say that later versions of the document will include rationale behind
> the WCAG2ICT task force guidance? Consider stating that our working
> group's intent is to add rationale to explain or document how we
> arrived at the guidance and any special considerations.
I would accept wording around that from the task force but haven't done
anything for this yet.
>
> Document conventions section editorial comment: Instead of saying
> '<blockquote>s' suggest instead saying '<blockquote> elements' to
> match how the other elements are described.
Fixed.
> In the 5th paragraph of Introduction, the "etc." should be outside of
> the quotation marks at the end of the first sentence of that paragraph.
Fixed.
>
> I don't understand why "Web content" is in boldface in the last
> paragraph of Document Overview.
I'm not sure either, but this is the way it was in the Google site, and
I presumed it was intentional, perhaps to highlight that Web content is
not affected by this document. So for now I haven't changed this, but if
others agree it's ok to remove, I can.
> Introduction. Paragraph 1. The link "Working Group Note" contains an
> extra space at the end. The space should be outside the link.
Fixed.
>
> Introduction. Paragraph 1. WCAG 2.0 has been adopted as a standard
> jointly by ISO and IEC. So the brackets after "Working Group Note"
> should finish as "... also an ISO/IEC standard". In addition I think
> that we should spell out these two acronyms. ISO is "International
> Organization for Standardization" and IEC is "International
> Electrotechnical Commission".
I've made these changes, though I kept the acronyms and put them in
parenthesis, partly because people may be more familiar with the
acronyms and partly to follow WCAG Technique G97
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G97.html. This said, I'm not sure if
others will agree with this edit, so I invite extra review.
>
> Introduction. Paragraph 4. This paragraph talks about "the updated
> “Understanding WCAG 2.0”.", without providing a link or further
> explanation. I know that the updated version of "understanding" is an
> Editor's draft, but it has been linked below (under "Document
> overview") so it should also be linked here. In addition we should
> provide some explanation. I suggest adding some text after
> "Understanding WCAG 2.0": "(this document is being updated based on
> clarification requests made to the WCAG WG)".
Andi noted that she did not want to treat this one as editorial, so I
have done nothing yet.


    Key Terms

> Definition of document Note 4: Missing a comma in 'closed caption text
> etc.' and should be 'closed caption text, etc.'
Fixed.
>
> Definition of software Note 3: 'verses' should be 'versus'. We aren't
> singing, but comparing against. :)
Fixed. But a fun homonym error. :)
>
> Definition of user agent, paragraph after the original WCAG
> definition: Remove the word 'this' from the sentence 'For non-Web ICT,
> “user agent” needs to be viewed this differently.' to instead read
> 'For non-Web ICT, “user agent” needs to be viewed differently.'
Fixed.
>
> Same paragraph, the term "user agent" always appears in quotations,
> but other references to terms we have defined in our document are
> instead made strong (bold). These references to the term "user agent"
> should be visually consistently with other terms. Also missed any
> visual treatment on the last use of 'user agent' in the last sentence
> of this paragraph.
I removed emphasis from "Web content" but kept it on "not in the Web"
which seemed to be intended emphasis. I removed emphasis from "document"
and put it in quotes to be consistent, as well is the last use of "user
agent".
> I'm not sure if this is "editorial" or not. The ending of the Note for
> Content is a bit information. Instead of "... the software itself does
> that", I wonder if we might rather say: "... the software itself
> PERFORMS THAT FUNCTION"?
Various people supported this so I made the change.
>
> Note 1 of Document has a singularity/plurality disagreement (or can
> you have a possessive "its" applying to a plurality?). I suggest it be
> changed to: "A document always requires a user agent to present its
> content to the user."
Fixed.

> Content (web content): the term "user agent" appears in bold style.
> I've looked at the definition given in WCAG 2.0 and it is a link to
> the definition of "user agent". Why is it bold? Other definitions
> below contain terms that have their own definition (such as "content"
> used in the definition of "document") and they are not in bold style.
>
> Content (non-Web content): the term "software" is also bold.
The task force began discussing the issue in today's teleconference but
did not complete the discussion. See minutes and I expect this will be
addressed Tuesday.

> add definition of set of docs
This would require task force action to create the definition. I can put
it in once that is done but there is very little time to get a fully
vetted definition ready if we want to publish this calendar year. Go for
it if you like.


    Closed Functionality

> "Taskforce" should be "Task force" and the link should only be on the
> text 'task force work statement' and not on 'outside of the'.
Fixed.
> The number of this section appears as "4" within the document (though
> oddly not in the TOC).
Fixed. My section numbering isn't automated as it should be, but I've
fixed enough of these mistakes I've gotta do that...

> Appendix A. Note 1. There is a typo. The first sentence contains the
> words "... if they are partially closed or if the allow for the
> connection". The words "they allow" should be used instead of "the allow".
Fixed.
> add rationale do not remove item
I would need the task force to provide these rationales.
> In UK English the "of" is incorrect in the phrase "outside of" in the
> last sentence of the first paragraph - delete if it is optional in US
> English.
This usage is not incorrect in US English, I believe, but it is
optional, so I made this change.


    Principle 1: Perceivable

> 1.2.1 Additional guidance - link text says 'non-web document', but the
> definition is just for 'document'.
I would like input from the task force on this. The term "non-web
document" was used a lot throughout, but as this comment notes it just
links to the term definition for "document". The brackets on the Google
site did leave me with the impression that the entire phrase was meant
to be linked, which is why I did it that way, but I did think it was
odd. I can think of a few actions:

   1. change instances of "non-web document" to just "document" as this
      comment suggests;
   2. move the "non-web" part outside of the term reference, so just the
      word "document" is linked but the use of "non-web" is retained;
   3. leave things as is.

Another commenter said:
> The simplest solution is to only link the word "document" to the
> "document" definition. Also in 1.4.2.
So that seems like a vote for option 2 above. But let me know what the
TF decision is.
>
> 1.4.2 Additional guidance - You'd actually replace 'on a Web page'
> instead of just 'a Web page' with our replacement interpretation.
Fixed.
> After reading through the draft, I have a general comment on the text
> of the headings for "additional guidance". In the current draft the
> text says:
>
> "Additional guidance when applying Success Criterion N.N.N to
> Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products:"
>
> Which is strange because we are not using "electronic documents" nor
> "software aspects of products". Is there a reason for that?
>
> I think that we should use the words that are registered in our Google
> sites pages:
>
> "Additional guidance when applying Success Criterion N.N.N to Non-Web
> Documents and Software"
This format was worked out during the first round of publishing on the
W3C site. If the task force would now like something different, it's
easy for me to change these headings, but I need TF approval to go ahead
with that.
>
> 1.1.1 Additional guidance. I propose a rewrite of note 1 (editorial, I
> think) to improve readability. My suggestion is to put the text in
> brackets at the end of the note, and to remove the commas surrounding
> the brackets:
>
> "Note 1: CAPTCHAs do not currently appear outside of the Web. However,
> if they do appear, this guidance is accurate. If they do not appear
> then the success criterion would be met automatically (as with any
> situation where a success criterion talks about something that is not
> present)."
This is perhaps pushing the limits of editorial discretion, but because
there weren't actual wording changes I went ahead with the reshuffling.
The clause that is parenthesized in the proposal above, though, I just
separated with a comma. I think it works grammatically and no longer
needed to be parenthetical.
>
> 1.2.4 Additional guidance. In the note, the term "text alternative" is
> a "normal" link, but it should be formatted as a link to definitions
> (dotted underline) as has be made, for instance, in 1.2.2 (which
> contains exactly the same note).
Fixed.

> i dont think we need to have any changes or comments on any of the
> PRINCIPLES or GUIDELINES.
>
> they are not normative (you do NOT need to conform to either of them).
> They are like heading and introduction to the SC which are the ONLY
> things that you need to read and conform to to meet the WCAG.
>
> The Principles and GUIDELINES are kind of like "INTENT" items for the
> block but they pertain to the SC, the Notes, the techniques
> (sufficient AND advisory) etc. We also say that doing ALL Of those
> STILL will not meet the GUIDELINES intent. So we should just leave
> them alone.
>
> Or rather say
>
> Since the Principles and Guidelines are for framing and understanding
> the success criteria, we find that they apply as written as goals in
> general. Neither is required for conformance to WCAG.
I'm unclear what the suggestion is here. Is it boilerplate to be added
to each of the principles and guidelines? Something to be addressed in
the introduction? Should I remove the boilerplate that exists for
Guidelines (but not Principles) that reads "The WCAG2ICT Task Force has
not yet reviewed at the Guideline level; see success criteria below for
guidance on Guideline 1.1."? Do you still want the Intent section copied
through for Guidelines, or not if there won't be any WCAG2ICT guidance
that would modify that?


    Principle 2: Operable

> For 2.4.1, would the replacement be 'documents' or 'non-web
> documents'? It probably doesn't really matter, but just asking for
> consistency sake.
I would like to see consistency as well, unless there are specific
reasons not to be consistent (which goes beyond my knowledge of the TF
intent). It would make sense for the TF to consider this in the context
of the "non-web documents" question above.
>
> For 2.4.4, should the word replacement be 'non-web documents' rather
> than 'electronic documents'?
I will need a TF decision on this.
>
> For 2.4.5, the third replacement of the word 'document' isn't shown in
> red like the others. 
Fixed.
>
> 2.3.1 Additional guidance. I don't know if this is just editorial or
> not, but the note of 2.3.1 also contains the word "page" (in "the
> whole page" and "on the Web page"). So we need proper replacements for
> those. My complete proposal is below:
>
> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above), replacing “Web pages” with “non-web
> documents or software”, "the whole page" with "the whole non-web
> document or software" and "the Web page" with "the non-web document or
> software".
>
> With these substitutions, it would read:
>
> 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold: [non-web documents or
> software] do not contain anything that flashes more than three times
> in any one second period, or the flash is below the general flash and
> red flash thresholds. (Level A)
>
> Note: Since any content that does not meet this success criterion can
> interfere with a user's ability to use [the whole non-web document or
> software], all content on [the non-web document or software] (whether
> it is used to meet other success criteria or not) must meet this
> success criterion. See Conformance Requirement 5: Non-Interference.
This definitely pushes editorial discretion, but it does seem clear to
me this was the intent of the TF, so I made this change. But please look
it over carefully.
>
> 2.4.1 Additional guidance. Documents. I think that the proper
> replacement for "multiple Web pages" should be "a set of documents".
> This is needed for the additional guidance tet to make any sense,
> becuase it talks about the concept of "set".
>
> I'm afraid that this change is not just editorial, but here is my
> proposal, just in case.
>
> This applies as written and described in INTENT of Understanding WCAG
> 2.0 (above), replacing “multiple Web pages” with “a set of documents”
> and assuming that “set” means a group of items 1) that are published
> together, and 2) where the items all refer to each other by name or link.
>
> With these substitutions, it would read:
>
> 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of
> content that are repeated on a set of documents.
>
> [The remaining text of the additional guidance stays the same]
Yes, this isn't editorial so I will await a decision from the TF.
>
> 2.4.4 Additional guidance. I'm afraid that we need to think carefully
> about term replacements in the INTENT. I've seen 4 instances of "Web
> page" and 5 instances of "page". I think that both can safely be
> replaced by "non-web document or software", but we probably need to
> check for that. I'm not sure that this is something that is just a
> "editorial" change.
I agree with this concern, but need guidance as to which direction I
should go to address it.
>
> In addition I believe that we should apply the substitutions in the
> INTENT. So the additional guidance should be:
>
> "This applies directly as written and as described in INTENT from
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above), replacing “Web page” or "page" with
> “non-web document or software” in the INTENT. "
>
> Then we have to add how the INTENT would read. [Note: I've tried to
> put the modified text in the survey, but it seems that I've reached a
> limit in text size. However I have it ready if needed].
This is the one instance where the WCAG2ICT guidance modifies
Understanding WCAG 2.0, not just WCAG 2.0. Copying in a whole 'nother
copy of the Intent to show these modifications is possible but would be
long. It might also confuse readers into thinking we were showing a
modified quote from the guidelines, unless we found a good way to make
it different. For these reasons I didn't do this when it first came up.
But if the TF would like me to, and has some input on the issues I
raise, we can do it.
>
> 2.4.6 Additional guidance. Note. I think that the first sentence of
> the note needs a rewrite. The current version seems to say that
> "headings" describe "controls" and that "labels" describe "sections of
> content". I suggest changing the order of "controls" and "sections of
> content":
>
> "Note that in software, headings and labels are used to describe
> sections of content and controls respectively."
Fixed.
> In Tuesday's meeting[1], we agreed to the following:
>
> 2.4.1 - change [replacing “Web pages” with “documents”] to [replacing
> “Web pages” with “non-web documents”]. With substitutions: "A
> mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated
> on multiple [non-web documents]."
>
> 2.4.5 - we thought it would be too cumbersome say "non-web documents
> within a set of non-web documents" so we decided to only put the
> non-web qualifier with the set of documents. Therefore change
> [replacing “Web pages” with “documents”] to [replacing “Web page” with
> “document” and "set of Web pages" with "set of non-web documents"].
> With substitutions: "More than one way is available to locate a
> [document] within a [set of non-web documents] except where the
> document is the result of, or a step in, a process."
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-wcag2ict-minutes.html
It's unclear to me in those minutes that there was a formal resolution
about this, or if it's just discussion. So I need to ask for TF
confirmation of these changes.


    Principle 3: Understandable

> 3.2.4 - Should it be 'a non-web document' rather than 'an electronic
> document'? Just wondering, but did this text get approved by the WCAG
> working group, as I thought they had issues with us changing the 'set
> of Web pages' to something singular like a document or a software UI.
> But perhaps my memory isn't serving me well on this.
> [Peter: @Mary Jo - This came up in the WCAG WG meeting on 6Dec. They
> approved text back when "electronic document" was our term, but
> Loretta had "set of documents" concerns.]
> [Andi: @Mary Jo, we should use "non-web document" rather than
> "electronic document". Gregg has already raised the issue about our
> replacement of "set of web pages" in this one. At the time we
> discussed this one, the task force felt that it didn't matter in this
> case how we defined the set. For now, we should just use "a non-web
> document or software" instead of "an electronic document or a software
> user interface" because that is what we reached consensus on. After
> this draft, we will get back to the set discussion for 2.4.1, 2.4.5,
> and 3.2.3 and can reconsider 3.2.4 as part of that discussion.]
Based on these responses that were made within the survey, I have done
nothing with this comment.
> 3.1.2 Additional guidance. I think that the replacement should be
> slightly different. Instead of replacing "content" by "non-web
> documents or software", I think it is better to replace by "non-web
> document or software" (that is with "document" in singular):
>
> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “content” with "non-web
> document or software".
>
> With these substitutions, it would read:
>
> 3.1.2 Language of Parts: The human language of each passage or phrase
> in [the non-web document or software] can be programmatically
> determined except for proper names, technical terms, words of
> indeterminate language, and words or phrases that have become part of
> the vernacular of the immediately surrounding text. (Level AA)
>
> [The two notes remain unchanged]
I did this.
>
> 3.2.4 Additional guidance. I think that we need to be consistent with
> other agreements made after this was approved by WCAG-WG. I see two
> possibilities:
>
> I think that we can replace "a set of Web pages" by "a non-web
> document or software". This is probably easy to make as it doesn't
> change the agreement made in WCAG-WG: it only aligns with our other
> agreements. In addition it would allow us to agree on a complete
> solution for documents and software without having to deal with "sets
> of software".
>
> And we need to implement the word replacement, as has been done elsewhere.
>
> The result would be:
>
> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “a set of Web pages” with “a
> non-web document or software”.
>
> With these substitutions, it would read:
>
> 3.2.4: Consistent Identification: Components that have the same
> functionality within [a non-web document or software] are identified
> consistently. (Level AA)
I think this is part of the discussion above about terms, so I haven't
done anything yet. But I did put in the "With these substitutions, it
would read:" bit during today's teleconference.
>
> 3.3.4 Additional guidance. I think that we've made a mistake! The
> success criterion contains the term "Web pages" and we are not giving
> any word replacement...
>
> We should replace "Web pages" by "Non-web documents or software". The
> result would be:
>
> This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) replacing “Web pages” with “Non-web
> documents or software”.
>
> With these substitutions, it would read:
>
> 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For [Non-web
> documents or software] that cause legal commitments or financial
> transactions for the user to occur, that modify or delete
> user-controllable data in data storage systems, or that submit user
> test responses, at least one of the following is true:
> * Reversible: Submissions are reversible.
> * Checked: Data entered by the user is checked for input errors and
> the user is provided an opportunity to correct them.
> * Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and
> correcting information before finalizing the submission.
Will need the TF to confirm this.
> 3.2.3 - See my comments on 2.4.5 under Principle 2 above regarding
> Tuesday's meeting. Change [replacing “Web pages” with “documents”] to
> [replacing “Web pages” with “documents” and "set of Web pages" with
> "set of non-web documents"]. With substitutions: "Navigational
> mechanisms that are repeated on multiple [documents] within a [set of
> non-web documents] occur in the same relative order each time they are
> repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user."
I think also part of an ongoing discussion, so haven't done anything yet.


    Principle 4: Robust

> Guideline 4.1 - Doesn't it need text such as: 'The WCAG2ICT Task Force
> has not yet reviewed at the Guideline level; see success criteria
> below for guidance on Guideline 4.1.' 
That's there as far as I see.
> In addition, it has a Note 3 referencing closed functionality, but
> there is no mention of guideline 4.1 in that section or in Appendix A.
> Perhaps the wrong info got copied in here since the reference to
> closed functionality section is missing from 4.1.2.
This was a coding error that I fixed during Thursday's WCAG call.
>
> 4.1.2 needs to have the 'Note 3: See also the discussion on Closed
> Functionality in the Introduction.'
The same coding error, which led to the note appearing in the wrong
place. Now fixed.


    Glossary Terms

> Do we intend to keep the editorial note on the contrast ratio
> definition? On a more technical note, the original WCAG definition of
> contrast ratio didn't even include the term 'Web content', so why are
> we suggesting a replacement/interpretation?
> contrast ratio. I've cheched the WCAG 2.0 definition and it does not
> contain any "web" words, so the only thing that we need is the note of
> non-applicability to hardware.
I would like task force input on the editorial note, either to take up
the suggestion in the note or to confirm that it's right as it is, but
either way allow me to remove the note.
>
> User agent definition: Link to the guidance on user agent in the key
> terms section doesn't link to an anchor within our document - just
> takes the user to the top of the document (Apparently the anchor
> called intro_keyterms_ua is missing).
Fixed.
>
> Web page: There is an editorial note that there is nothing on our
> website about the definition of this term. Is our consensed guidance
> in our notes somewhere, or maybe this term needs to be removed for
> this release of the document. On the google docs site definitions from
> glossary page, we said "Web page" should be 'Interpreted as
> "electronic document or software" except for "set of web pages"'
> However, the linked page for the individual "Web page" definition
> doesn't show this definition with the replacement words. Also,
> shouldn't it be interpreted as 'non-web document or software'?
> Web page. I think that it should belong to the "apply to all
> technologies" section.
I wasn't sure what to do here so I put in that editorial note. We can
either put in guidance if you can tell me what is the official TF
guidance, or we can move the term to the list of terms still under
discussion.
>
> I also noticed that Kiran's last name is misspelled in the
> Participants in the WCAG2ICT Task Force section - should be Kaja
Fixed.
> We don't have a "With these substitutions, it would read:" bit for
> "ambiguous to users in general", and we should.
Fixed, though I made "document" singular given the grammatical context.

>
> supplemental content. The word replacement needed here is to replace
> "Web page" by "non-web document or software". The term "Web content"
> does not appear here.
I'd like a closer look by the TF on this. In fact WCAG2ICT redefines
"content", so part of the substitution might be to replace "content"
(linked to the WCAG term) with "content" (linked to the WCAG2ICT term).
I think I did that by mistake already anyways. I also took up this
comment to replace "a Web page" with "content".

> OK except that I think BLINKING has been retired with the WCAG new text. 
Not sure what is meant here. There was a clarification I think on the
blinking or moving SC, but the term isn't retired from WCAG.

Michael
-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>