W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: ATAG 2.0 Comments

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:07:45 -0500
Message-ID: <45ABDF11.6030709@utoronto.ca>
To: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Thanks for your comments Ben. We will get responses to you as soon as 


Ben Caldwell wrote:
> The following comments are based on the 11 January 2007 WCAG discussion 
> and review of ATAG 2.0.
> 1.) Suggest moving the section "How the guidelines are organized" to a 
> location earlier in the document. Knowing about Part A and Part B seems 
> important to understanding much of what is in conformance (ex. relative 
> vs. regular priority).
> 2.) I have a number of concerns about the content type-specific WCAG 
> benchmark:
> a.) Who publishes benchmark documents? This is a major coordination 
> point between the working groups that needs discussion.
> b.) Since WCAG 2.0 techniques say nothing about conformance to WCAG 
> itself, the benchmark document should refer to some combination of the 
> How to Meet and techniques documents. Not sure his model works unless 
> the benchmark specifies sufficient techniques or combinations of 
> techniques that meet WCAG 2.0. Has the ATAG WG created any sample 
> benchmark documentations to illustrate how this might work?
> c.) All of the references to WCAG 2.0 techniques documents 
> [WCAG20-TECHS-SCRIPTING]) should refer to 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ (the WG is no longer publishing 
> tech-specific techniques documents)
> d.) "All of the requirements in the Benchmark become normative..." This 
> implies that a benchmark document can define conformance to WCAG 2.0, 
> but it's not clear how a benchmark document would address (1) situations 
> in WCAG 2.0 How to meet documents and (2) situations where multiple 
> sufficient techniques or combinations of techniques meet a criterion. 
> The concern here is that it sounds like a benchmark can include only a 
> subset of the WCAG 2.0 sufficient techniques and then be used to define 
> (by example) WCAG 2.0 conformance.
> 3.) The section "How the guidelines are organized" does a nice job of 
> describing which sections and subsections of a guidelines are 
> informative vs. normative. It might be useful to incorporate something 
> similar in the WCAG 2.0 intro.
> 4.) A.0.1 SC1 seems like it should mention content rather than just 
> functionality. (ex. Content that includes Web-based authoring tool user 
> interface functionality must conform to WCAG.) WCAG 2.0's use of 
> "functionality" (def. processes and outcomes achievable through user 
> action) may be part of what's confusing about this.
> 5.) Would removing the distinction between relative priority and regular 
> priority checkpoints make conformance easier to understand? Given that 
> there's no difference in a conformance claim (A, AA, and AAA the same 
> thing regardless of checkpoint priority), I'm not sure it's necessary to 
> make a distinction here. I found myself spending a lot of time trying to 
> understand the difference between the two as I worked through the intro, 
> but it seems like this is covered through requirements for conformance 
> claims and sufficient techniques for the relative checkpoints.
> 6.) While some terms common to ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 are defined the 
> same way, it seems that others are not. (ex ATAG "equivalent 
> alternative" seems to be the same as WCAG "alternative version") It 
> would be a good idea for the documents to agree on definitions where 
> possible. Note that some WCAG definitions have changed since our last TR 
> draft based on public comments and ATAG definitions may need to be 
> updated accordingly. Also, some definitions (ex. red and general flash 
> threshold may still change based on WCAG 2.0 comments.)
> 7.) definition of "available programmatically" - This seems only to say 
> that it's possible for the information to be communicated, not that it 
> has been. Is there something in ATAG that requires that information that 
> "should" be available to AT actually is available? The concern here is 
> that these SC would be met if the info is available regardless of 
> whether AT actually make use of it.
> 8.) (bug) All of the icons used in part A and B of the draft 
> implementation techniques documents include relative links to 
> nonexistent anchors.
> Congratulations on the updated draft!
> -Ben

Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 20:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:54 UTC