Template for comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft and Support Documents Commenter: Henny Swan Email: henny.swan@rnib.org.uk Affiliation: Royal National Institute of the Blind Date: 22 June, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Headings 3. Part of item: Introduction - Conformance 4. Comment type: G 5. Comment: The first two sections are quite long and difficult to read. Many references are made to "the Working Group consider..." and the suchlike that does not feel relevant to the document. This is legacy content that possibly need to be removed. Some parts, Baselines in particular are very, very difficult to understand. Only after numerous read throughs and discussions has it really become clear what the concept is. The explanation of the concept needs to be put in more laymen terms and less jargony. 6. Proposed change: Use clearer and simpler English to explain concepts. 6. Proposed change: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item Number : E.g. "Intro" for introduction, "1.1" for a guideline 1.1, "3.2.1" for success criterion 3.2.1, "H-56" for HTML technique number H-56. 3. Part of Item (Heading) : E.g. "Intent", "Description", "Examples", etc. 4. Comment Type (G, T, E, or Q) : 5. Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change) : 6. Proposed Change (Be specific) : Filling this out greatly increases our ability to understand and address your concern. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: "Important new terms used in WCAG 2.0" 4. Comment type: T 5. 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". 6. Proposed change: Provide an example of a "web unit" that is not a web page. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Conformance 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The text "The WCAG Working Group believes that all success criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system of checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by success criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above" is not very clear, it is still difficult to understand the rationale behind the move from WCAG 1 and Priorities to WCAG 2 and "Levels". 6. Proposed change: Expand and explain the rationale -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Conformance 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The text "Note that even conformance to all three levels will not make Web content accessible to all people." is a bit misleading as people may think "why bother". 6. Proposed change: Provide explanation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Conformance 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The description of the differences between levels and priorities, WCAG 1 and 2 could be confusing for a reader who has not read WCAG 1 or is new to WCAG. It has the potential to confuse and hinder understanding as two concepts/rationale are being introduced simultaneously. 6. Proposed change: One way around this may be to write the document (including all supporting informative documents) with no reference to WCAG 1 then have a separate document that explains ALL differences between WCAG 1 and 2. This could be an appendix and referenced at the start of the WCAG 2.0 normative document. Alternatively an explanation can be given and then in a separate paragraph or Note an explanation between the differences of WCAG 1 and 2 given. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Conformance / Note 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The ext is verbose and confusing: "...If the test(s) for a "sufficient" technique or combination of techniques is passed, then the Working Group would consider that success criterion met. However, passing all tests for all techniques is not necessary. Nor is it necessary to meet a success criterion using one of the sufficient techniques. There may be other techniques which are not documented by the working group that would also meet the success criterion." I had to re-read this a few times to understand it. In addition to this the reference to "the Working Group consider" also makes the explanation a bit more wordy. 6. Proposed change: It may read better if cut down and simplified to: "If the test(s) for a "sufficient" technique or combination of techniques is passed, then that success criterion has been met. Passing all tests for all techniques is not necessary. Alternatively a success criterion could be met using a technique that is not referenced in this document." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: "Choosing baseline technologies" 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: "In choosing Web technologies (HTML, scripting, etc.) that will be used when building content, authors need to know what technologies they can assume will be supported by, and active in, the user agents (including assistive technologies) that people with disabilities will be using. If authors rely on technologies that are not supported, then their content may not be accessible." - "assume" seems like a weak word and one that could provide a loophole, get out clause excuse for not making certain technologies accessible. For example a developer could "assume" that all their users have the latest Flash plug-in, screen reader version etc which may support certain technologies better than earlier versions. While I can understand what the concept of baseline is trying to do - give flexibility where it makes sense - it leaves a back door open. Would it not be an idea for WCAG 2 to recommend a minimum baseline (as the Mobile Web Initiative does in their Best Practises document). This can then be updated by WCAG as and when technologies move on. Alternatively some more substantial advice or guidance should be given to help people set sensible baselines and prevent people abusing the baseline. - the baseline section explains what it is (although in a slightly difficult to read way) but it gives very scant guidance on setting a baseline. This needs to be substantially developed. - The text "authors need to know what technologies they can assume will be supported by, and active in, the user agents" infers that this information is available from the software vendor where in reality it is not readily available. How then is a developer best able to "assume" a baseline without thoroughly investigating all access technologies and their ability to support CSS, HTML, Flash, JavaScript et al. Who is responsible for providing this support? Software developers, Government, advocacy groups? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: "Choosing baseline technologies" 4. Comment type: G 5. Comment: The paragraphs describing baselines, what's included not included and what you have to confirm to depending on this, is very difficult to read. 6. Proposed change: Perhaps a couple of examples can be given explaining in each one what is included, not included and what is expected, some use scenarios i.e. "Is you include X, Y and Z in you baseline then...if U and V are not included then you must....". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: "Choosing baseline technologies" 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: In reference to the number of baselines given there needs to be more of a focus on non-government/intranet example baselines. Government and Intranet baselines are the less contentious ones to set (at RNIB we have always done this for Intranets for example making adherence to JS less of a priority dependant on the user agents etc used in the organisations). Business websites, corporates, SME's etc are the ones who are going to need more of a steer as they have business needs that may overshadow fair baselines. 6. Proposed change: Perhaps another 2 examples of potential baselines for business could be given along with rationale. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Scoping conformance claims 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The sentence "While scoping can include and exclude parts of a site, processes (such as shopping) and authored units must be considered in their entirety." is a bit confusing. Isn't shopping considered to be "part" of a site as well as a "process"? 6. Proposed change: Provide some explanation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Heading 3. Part of item: Scoping conformance claims 4. Comment type: G 5. Comment: It feels as if this is a get out clause for a site owner to make all but the most complex area of a site accessible. For example a supermarket can make everything but the online shopping accessible and stop there. It potentially allows to the site owner to get complacent once all but the most complex parts of the site have been made accessible. You can argue that laws enforcing accessibility in a country will bridge this gap of possible apathy but not all countries a) have laws, b) have the will to enforce them. Take for example China in 2008. They could build a site using technologies amount to allowing content based on Ajax i.e. to update timetables etc and leave those sections out of the conformance claims. A basic baseline has to be recommended in WCAG 2, it can't be left to legal, market and other forces from country to country. It can't claim to be a standard if there is not a minimum foundation. 6. Proposed change: This needs to be more water tight. If that section CAN be made accessible (i.e. the techniques exist to make it accessible) then it must be. If it is problematic to make accessible then a clear indication that it is being worked on placed in the conformance claim. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: SC 1.1.1 3. Part of item: Framsets 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment:" For framesets, noframes is no longer required", unsure why this is no longer present. 6. Proposed change: Explanation needed as to why it is not included. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Guideline 2.5 3. Part of item: Help users avoid making mistakes. 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: Success criteria don't mention having instructions in a page to help users interact (for example fill in forms). Also makes no mention of placement of help text (for example at the top of forms rather than at the foot after the submit button. Unsure if SC 2.5.4 covers this. 6. Proposed change: Add the above in as Success Criteria or clarify the are part of 2.5.4 in the techniques. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: TD http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/Overview.html 2. Item number: 3.1.2 3. Part of item: Intent of this success criterion, final paragraph. 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: The paragraph "This requirement does not apply to individual words or to phrases that have become part of the primary language of the content. For example, "rendezvous" is a French word that has been adopted in English, appears in English dictionaries, and is properly pronounced by English screen readers." does not give enough guidance to developers as to what individual words or phrases qualify as a change in language. For example, some words are *just* entering the English language or are names used in products. For example is does Bordeaux wine have to have Bordeaux marked up? 6. Proposed change: Give further examples of how to clarify if a word should be marked up or not. One example may be is the word is in the dictionary for the natural language of the page (i.e. in the UK the word is in the Oxford English Dictionary). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Guideline 3.1 3. Part of item: All 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: No mention is made of presentation of text i.e. left aligned vs. justified/right aligned text, long lines, multiple columns, overuse of different styles etc. 6. Proposed change: Add in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Guideline 3.2 3. Part of item: 3.2.2 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: Moving focus automatically in form fields can cause problems for screen reader and screen magnification users. 6. Proposed change: Remove or add in a clause that says that the fact focus moves on is flagged in the instructions for the form. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Guideline 3.1 3. Part of item: Success Criteria 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: WCAG1 14.1 is not represented in this guideline or any other. This is quite a major omission and one that is important for not only users with cognitive and reading problems but also browsing in a second language; a strange omission given W3C's Internationalisation WG. 6. Proposed change: Add in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: General 3. Part of item: General 4. Comment type: General 5. Comment: WCAG1, 3.4 (use relative fonts) not in WCAG 2. Unsure why this is. 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: General 3. Part of item: General 4. Comment type: General 5. Comment: WCAG1, 1.5 (redundant text links for client-side image maps) not in WCAG2. Says this is due to user agents now being able to render text alternatives for client-side images. True however this does not take into account screen magnification users who can get easily lost in a complex image map. 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: General 3. Part of item: General 4. Comment type: General 5. Comment: WCAG1, checkpoint is not reflected in WCAG 2. The WCAG 2 checklist states that this is because it is reflected in the techniques rather than the Success Criteria which are normative. Can be argued that 14.2 is as important to people with cognitive problems as 1.1 and alt text are to VI users. In WCAG one the former was a P3 that later a P1. It may be that because it is not testable that 14.2 hasn't carried over into WCAG 2 but it shouldn't be excluded because it is not testable as it is still a fundamental guideline for this user group. In the Introduction it states that WCAG2 is for people with cognitive and learning problems so therefore this checkpoint should be in WCAG 2. 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: Guideline 3.1 3. Part of item: 3.1.6 4. Comment type: T 5. Comment: References to secondary school in this are at best difficult and confusing for a developer to understand. This type of understanding, i.e. as defined by UNESCO, can be argued to be out of scope of the remit of the web designer to understand and as a result of it being to difficult the checkpoint perceived as woolly and therefore ignored. 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: 3. Part of item: 4. Comment type: 5. Comment: 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: 3. Part of item: 4. Comment type: 5. Comment: 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: 3. Part of item: 4. Comment type: 5. Comment: 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: 3. Part of item: 4. Comment type: 5. Comment: 6. Proposed change: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Document Abbreviation: W2 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (complete version) http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/complete.html 2. Item number: 3. Part of item: 4. Comment type: 5. Comment: 6. Proposed change: ------------------------------------------------- 1) Document Abbreviation (W2, UW, or TD) : W2 W2 for WCAG 2.0; UW for 'Understanding WCAG' document (and for the 'How To Meet' sections of this doc); TD for 'Techniques' document. 2) Item Number : E.g. "Intro" for introduction, "1.1" for a guideline 1.1, "3.2.1" for success criterion 3.2.1, "H-56" for HTML technique number H-56. 3) Part of Item (Heading) : E.g. "Intent", "Description", "Examples", etc. 4) Comment Type (G, T, E, or Q) : G = General (i.e., applies to whole document); T = Technical (i.e., deals with substance); E = Editorial (i.e., concerns grammar, wording, formatting, etc.); Q = Question (i.e. not requesting any change). 5) Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change) : 6) Proposed Change (Be specific) : Filling this out greatly increases our ability to understand and address your concern. -------------------------------------------------