W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2009

IBM Feedback v2

From: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:44:04 -0500
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Message-ID: <OF4D0CD5E1.B651F306-ON85257693.0055ECD3-85257693.00566EE5@us.ibm.com>


Hello,

Regrets for the 12/21 meeting.

Below is additional feedback from IBM:


Section specific comments


 1.	Guideline A.1.2 This is a general comment about the non web
    accessibility compliance points: There are no restrictions on what an
    accessibility standard is. It is user defined now. Consequently, the
    evaluator could define their own compliance claims.


 2.	A.1.2.1 In WCAG, it is not a requirement to make a conformance claim.
    This provision seems to require that authoring tools make a claim.
    Suggest removing "and cite in the conformance claim)" and adding an
    additional sentence: "If an ATAG 2.0 conformance claim is made, the
    claim should cite the accessibility standards and/or platform
    conventions that were followed.


 3.	A.2.1.1 Define "accessible" as used in the context of this provision.


 4.	A.2.2.2 The use of "and" at the end of each item in the list seems
    redundant with the wording of the provision ("any of the following").


 5.	A.2.2.2 If you are accessing text, you need access to the caret
    position, and the selected text. Does use of a text view preclude
    embedded objects? If not then they need to be accessible as well.


 6.	A.3.1.1 The provision is repeated. Why is this provision needed? It is
    already required by provision A.1.1.1.


 7.	A.3.2.2 Why is this provision needed? It is already required by
    provision A.1.1.1.


 8.	A.3.2.3 This provision is an example of a WCAG requirement that is made
    for stringent in ATAG. There's no issue with doing that when there is a
    good reason which in this case, I think there is. But the problem is
    that the authoring tool developer may have already implemented one of
    the other strategies that are allowed by WCAG. Somewhere ATAG should
    call out where there are provisions that override WCAG provisions.
    Maybe in A.1.1.1?


 9.	A.3.2.3 This checkpoint only says to stop. Per WCAG 2 you want to be
    able to Pause and Hide content.


 10.	A.3.4.2 This should include role types such as ARIA roles.


 11.	A.3.4.2 There should be a navigate by relationships: labels, controls,
    describedby, etc. should those features be supported.


 12.	A.3.4.3 Should be scoped to structured element sets that have heading
    elements. Suggest changing "If an editing view displays a structured
    element set" to "If an editing view displays a structured element set
    that includes heading elements".


 13.	A.3.4.4 Parent and child need clarifying. Suggest " Parent: The owning
    element" and "Child: The first owned element" ARIA or HTML might have
    some better wording.


 14.	A.3.6.1 and A.3.6.2 What about auditory settings? Most authoring tools
    don't have them but if they do, shouldn't the preference setting be
    saved?


 15.	A.3.7.2 See comment on A.1.2.1 regarding requiring conformance claims
    (item a). Item b may not be possible if the author has not met the
    requirements of WCAG (included text alternatives, provided structural
    markup, etc.) Is item c referring to UAAG version 2.0? If ATAG 2.0 is
    on track to finish first, it may be problematic to reference a standard
    that is not yet complete and I don't think we want to be referencing
    UAAG 1.0 which may be outdated.




Sueann Nichols

877-202-9272 (t/l)  930-0636
ssnichol@us.ibm.com
IBM Human Ability & Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 16:38:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 December 2009 16:38:24 GMT