W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2007

[DRAFT] UDPATED -- EOWG replies to WCAG WG responses on WCAG 2.0 LCWD

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:42:00 -0500
Message-ID: <46600608.8090907@w3.org>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Update: To the items marked for discussion, there are added comments and links.

---
Dear EOWG Participants,

Please review the following, which is the current status of our our replies 
to the WCAG WG's responses on our comments on the WCAG 2.0 Last Call 
Working Draft.

The information is taken mostly from our teleconference discussion last 
week, which was based on our survey responses by then, and any additional 
survey responses received by midnight Eastern time on Thursday. Let  me 
know if you spot any corrections needed.

Here are links to some key pages, in case you want to look anything up:
1. first batch of WCAG WG replies to us: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0044
2. second batch of WCAG WG replies to us: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0045
3. your EOWG survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/
4. EOWG survey results: 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results
5. WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/
6. WCAG 2.0 updated Public Working Draft: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/
7. Minutes from last week's EOWG call http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes

Thanks,

- Judy

[DRAFT EOWG REPLIES TO WCAG WG FOLLOWS]

[NOTE: The first sentence after each number is what we would send to WCAG 
WG. If there is a second sentence, in brackets, that is a note just for our 
own follow-up discussion, and would not be included in the follow-up 
response to WCAG WG.]

Comment #1: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #2: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #3: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #4: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #5: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #6: Accept resolution. [New comment: the Quick Reference formatting 
needs to be toned down, particularly wrt overuse of italics.]

Comment #7: (Discuss SAZ comment.)

Document: WCAG 2.0
Comment: 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.

Shadi's comment: The "one of the following" phrasing has been removed, yet it is still somewhat difficult to understand success criteria 1.1.1 for the following reasons:
- the description of the exceptions is much more elaborate than the common situation itself, making it hard to understand what is expected with "equivalent information";
- the description of the exceptions is hard to read because of the complex sentence structure, and many links within the text;

Links (which may or may not be needed for this discussion):
Shadi says more in followup email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0073.html
In previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/guidelines.html#text-equiv
In latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#text-equiv

---

Comment #8: (Get clarification on Liam's comment.)

Document: WCAG 2.0
Comment: 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".

Liam's comment: [missing]

---

Comment #9: Accept resolution. [Need to review "accessibility supported 
technologies.']

Comment #10: Accept resolution. [Need to review "accessibility supported 
technologie."]

Comment #11: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #12: Not accepted, because the revised definition of assistive 
technology is more difficult to understand than the original.
{Or: "Not accepted, because the revised definition of assistive technology is still too difficult to understand."}

Comment #13: Accept resolution. [New comment: Glossary definitions need 
better formatting.]

Comment #14: Accept resolution.

Comment #15: Accept resolution.

Comment #16: Accept resolution.

Comment #17: Accept resolution. [New comment: Glossary definitions need 
better formatting.]

Comment #18: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #19: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #20: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #21: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #22: Accept resolution. [Discuss whether we want to make a new 
comment on the understandability of "sufficient techniques"]

Comment #23: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #24: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.]

Comment #25: (Check w/ Wayne on his comment.)

Document: Understanding
Comment: The title of "Understanding WCAG 2.0" continues to be a concern for EOWG, because of several possible misinterpretations.
Proposed Change: EOWG recommends adding an exlanatory subheading to the document. Suggestions include:
   a. Your guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
   b. A guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
   c. A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
   d. The authoritative, encyclopaedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
   e. A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0
   f. A guide to understanding and using WCAG 2.0
Response from Working Group: We have added a subheading that reads, "A guide to understanding and implementing WCAG 2.0."

Wayne's Comment: This does not include the exaustive nature of Understanding WCAG 2

Link to Understanding WCAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/

---

Comment #26: Not accepted. The short handles in the success criteria are a 
help, but need them in the guidelines as well.
{Or: "Not accepted. The short handles for the success criteria are very useful. We still suggest providing short handles for the guidelines as well."}

Comment #27: Accept resolution. [Discuss whether at least a brief 
definition of these terms is needed in the Introduction to the guidelines.]
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 11:42:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:43 GMT