- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:37:25 -0400
- To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Dear EOWG Participants, Please take a look through the WCAG WG's replies to our comments. We will need to review these, to see if we accept their resolutions or whether or not we want to send any follow-up comments on these issues. Thank you, - Judy >Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:38:11 -0700 >From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com> >To: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org> >Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2) >Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org > >Dear Judy Brewer , > >Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the >Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 >http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the >interest that you have taken in these guidelines. > >We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many >constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause >us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited >until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters. > >This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions >to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of >your original comment on >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may >also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0 >Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/. > >PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following comments and reply to >us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are >satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly >archived. > >We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0 >Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines >and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of >issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see >http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review. > >Thank you, > >Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair >Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair >Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact > >On behalf of the WCAG Working Group > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 1: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215340.6AFF4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-988) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >Having an empty Quick Table of Contents is confusing > > >Proposed Change: > >Eliminate the Quick Table of Contents, unless subsections are added so >that a Quick TOC is needed. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The guidelines are no longer split into multiple pages, so the quick >TOC is no longer in use. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 2: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215712.6C60DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-989) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: general comment >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >It is initially unclear that this comparison table is complex, showing >both correspondences and differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0. > > > >Proposed Change: > >Clarify by: >- adding an explanation in the introduction to the comparison table >that this is a complex comparison, showing both the correspondences >and the differences between WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 success >criteria; and >- adding an additional column to the table, identifying whether the >correspondence shown is a parallel reference, a difference, a gap, >etc. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it >will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as >they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the >EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of >transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping >is updated. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 3: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622220019.9A084BDA8@w3c4.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-990) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >People may need to use the comparison table in very different ways, >but the current organization of the mapping table does not easily >allow for that. Also, some users may not initially realize the various >ways it can be helpful, or may misunderstand it as solely as mapping >table, or gap table, etc. > > >Proposed Change: > >Clarify purpose & uses of the table by: > >1. Adding a column for keywords, and enable multiple views of the >comparison table, for instance: > > -- sequencing by WCAG 2.0 success criteria > > -- sequencing by WCAG 1.0 checkpoint number > > -- sequencing by level > > -- sequencing by keyword > >2. Adding a few very brief use-cases as a mini-introduction, to >highlight what this comparison table can be used for; for example: > > -- if you are currently using WCAG 1.0, and want to see what the >corresponding provision might be in WCAG 2.0; > > -- if you are already using WCAG 2.0, but need to demonstrate >conformance to WCAG 1.0; > > -- if you need to compare what is required under a given priority or >level of conformance; > > -- if you need to find how a certain issue, such as color contrast, >is handled in both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it >will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as >they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the >EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of >transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping >is updated. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 4: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622221000.50F0FBDA8@w3c4.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-991) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The title \"Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0\" of this >appendix is unclear; similarly, the heading of the left column is >unclear. > > > >Proposed Change: > >Change the title of this appendix to: \"Comparison of WCAG 1.0 >Checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria,\" and add a more explicit >heading (e.g. \"WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint\") to the left column. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it >will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as >they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the >EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of >transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping >is updated. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 5: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622223644.5BE6866364@dolph.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-993) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The comparison table is complex, and is consequently currently >difficult to read with screen magnification, and also via screen >reader. Simple linearization may not help much because of the >complexity of the table. > > > >Proposed Change: > >Add extensive orientation notes to an accessible version. Check >readability with magnification and with speech or braille output. >[Note: an EOWG participant may send more specific suggestions.] > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it >will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as >they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the >EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of >transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping >is updated. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 6: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623015205.CA1F647BA1@mojo.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-994) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The format of the explanatory text following the success criteria is >difficult to follow, as the linked text is overly marked up with >underline, color, italics (which increase reading difficulty), and >on-hover highlights. > > >Proposed Change: > >Eliminate the italics and possibly also the on-hover highlights. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >We have removed the italics from the terms and have removed the square >brackets from the links to "How to Meet SC X.X.X." The on-hover >highlights on links are assigned by base.css which is a required W3C >Style. > > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 7: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020038.4285C47BA1@mojo.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-995) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >It is difficult to understand the logical relationship in success >criteria 1.1.1, because of the \"one of the following\" phrasing. > > >Proposed Change: > >Use the \"at least one of the following\" phrasing from 2.2.1 and >2.5.3; and check for clarity and consistency of logical relationships >throughout the rest of the success criteria. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >Success Criterion 1.1.1 was reworded. The bullets are now mutually >exclusive, so the term "at least" is no longer necessary. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 8: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020602.D5AB747BA1@mojo.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-996) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The term \"time-out\" (also written as \"timeout\" in the same >section) is not a familiar term for many readers. > > > >Proposed Change: > >Add a glossary entry for \"time-out.\" > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >We have updated SC 2.2.1 to use the term "time limit" instead of "time-out". > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 9: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023212.54ED733201@kearny.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-997) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >Each time EOWG discusses the baseline concept, there are a number of >concerns raised about potential mis-uses of baseline, and people can >think of a number of scenarios of potential abuse. > > >Proposed Change: > >EOWG recommends adding a much clearer statement of the intent of >baseline into the WCAG 2.0 TR document, so that this can be referenced >in any debates about potential mis-uses or abuses of baseline. EOWG >would be happy to give feedback on draft explanations of the intent. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The >term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web >technologies". The issue of what it means to be an >accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section >"Accessibility Support of Web Technologies" at >http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support . > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 10: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023433.A625F33201@kearny.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-998) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >In the discussion of baseline and conformance, it seems that there is >potential for misuse of baseline (e.g. authors might be able to just >declare their own level of technology). The actual/potential audience, >not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could >reply on, should define baseline. > > >Proposed Change: > >EOWG recommends that the WCAG WG re-consider the following strategies: >to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Web sites >today, W3C should publish a \'reasonable/realistic\' baseline >recommended for a general audience, outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative >document, with an explanation about why the particular baseline is >recommended; and it should update this recommended baseline annually >or periodically. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The >term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web >technologies". The issue of what it means to be an >accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section >"Accessibility Support of Web Technologies" at >http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support . > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 11: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024606.035F8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-999) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: substantive >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The term \"conformance\" is not necessarily a well understood term for >many readers, and its use in the definition of \"normative\" therefore >makes the definition of \"normative\" difficult to understand. > > >Proposed Change: > >Add a definition for conformance, consistent with the definition of >the EOWG definition of \"conforms,\" >http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html#conform >to the WCAG 2.0 glossary, and reference it in the definition of \"normative.\" > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >We have added the term to the glossary as follows: > >conformance > satisfying all the requirements of a given standard, guideline or >specification > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 12: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024721.819AEDAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-1001) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: substantive >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >The definition for assistive technology is difficult to understand >because it gives the restrictive before the general meaning; also, it >may be too restrictive, in describing legacy assistive technologies >(for instance, some screen readers now are creating their own DOM >separate from the mainstream browser). > > >Proposed Change: > >EOWG recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition. (Note: We >think that this would work *because* your definition of user agent is >broad enough to already cover some of the functions of some assistive >technologies.) > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >We have changed the order of the items in the definition to make the >restriction less confusing. We feel it is important to keep the >restriction that assistive technology depends on a host user agent so >that the success criteria require support for external assistive >technology and can't just be satisfied by mechanisms that are internal >to the user agent. However, we have added a note that host user agents >may provide direct support for users with disabilities. > > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 13: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030816.BDC9933201@kearny.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-1002) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >Some of the Glossary items are hard to follow because of the Notes. > > >Proposed Change: > >EOWG recommends integrating the Notes back into the main definitions, >and linking back to the main use of the defined term in the >guidelines. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >We don't want to change the format away from the format we are using >for definitions, where the definition can substitute for the word or >phrase. We will be adjusting the spacing, however, so that the notes >are tucked up against the definitions rather than looking like they >are separate entities. This also allows the notes to be formatted for >easier understanding for many of the definitions. > >Regarding the suggestion to link back to the main use of terms, many >terms are used many times and there isn't really a main use to link >back to. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >Comment 14: > >Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030938.87E46DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org >(Issue ID: LC-1003) > >Part of Item: >Comment Type: editorial >Comment (including rationale for proposed change): > >BUG: The caption for each table (guideline number and title) does not >display in Opera 8 > > >Proposed Change: > >Please fix. > >---------------------------- >Response from Working Group: >---------------------------- > >This issue has been resolved. -- Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526 32 Vassar Street Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 02:41:04 UTC