Re: [DRAFT-2-] EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0

Oops, forgot to add Wayne's comments about the conformance section. Will integrate these on Monday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0085.html

~Shawn

Shawn Henry wrote:
> 
> Dear EOWG:
> 
> Based on the discussion in the EOWG teleconference today, I have updated 
> draft replies to the WCAG WG on EOWG's comments on the May 2007 WCAG 2.0 
> Working Draft.
> 
> If you have any comments on these, please send them to the EOWG list 
> before 3:00pm US Eastern time Monday 19 February.
> Please review in particular the replies below that are refined some more 
> since our discussion this morning, or require additional followup:
> - Comment 4 use accessibility-supported technologies
> - Comment 14 All of Level 3 not required?
> - Comment 19 distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear
> - Comment 20 extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only
> - Comment 21 semantics conveyed through presentation?
> - Comment 22 Which page title?
> 
> Regards,
> ~Shawn
> 
> [DRAFT REPLY TO WCAG WG FOLLOWS]
> 
> Dear WCAG WG:
> 
> Thank you for your careful consideration of our previous comments, as 
> provided in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Nov/0038.html 
> 
> 
> [@@@ like a lot of your changes! especially conformation section and 
> Introduction...]
> 
> EOWG accepts your resolution of our comments numbered 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
> 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, and thus these are not included below.
> 
> For the remaining comments, please see our replies below.
> 
> Regards,
> Shawn Henry, EOWG Chair
> For EOWG http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 1: LC-1001: definition of assistive technology
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0405.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2270)
>> <...>
>> Response from Working Group:
>>
>> We have accepted the substance of your suggestions, with some wording
>> tweaks. The definition now reads:
>>
>>     hardware and/or software that acts as a user agent, or along with
>> a mainstream user agent, to provide services to meet the requirements
>> of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by the
>> mainstream user agents
> <...>
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 1 LC-1001 definition of assistive technology:
> The definition overall is now much clearer; however:
> - we find the use of "services" in the definition and in note 1 is 
> confusing, and we recommend instead using "input and output," or 
> "functionality"
> - we recommend removing the last "the" so it reads: "...go beyond those 
> offered by mainstream user agents"
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 4: use accessibility-supported technologies
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2274)
>>
>> 2. [conformance section] Explain clearly & simply, as part of the
>> introductory paragraph, that some technologies support assistive
>> technologies, and that these are the ones that one should use.
>>
>> Response from Working Group:
>>
>> The Introduction section was moved to Understanding WCAG, but
>> 'accessibility supported' is mentioned in the introductory sentence
>> (all there is) and then clearly explained in conformance requirement
>> #6 which follows shortly after.
> 
> EOWG reply on comment #4:
>  We are concerned that the following sentence is still difficult to parse:
> "Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies 
> that are not accessibility supported must also be available via 
> technologies that are accessibility supported."
>  We suggest that using the phrase "technologies with accessibility 
> support" may facilitate comprehension here, and possible everywhere that 
> the current phrase "accessibility supported technologies" is used. Such 
> replacement here would yield:
> "Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies 
> without accessibility support must also be available via technologies 
> with accessibility support."
> 
> [@@ EOWG Review documents to confirm our suggestion to use "technologies 
> with accessibility support" throughout... (then Shawn clarify in comment 
> above the scope of this change)]
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 5: web technologies
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2275)
>>
>> 3. [conformance section] In the first paragraph of "accessibility support
>> of web technologies" please add "Web" in front of the two uses of
>> "technologies" that do not currently have any other descriptor, so as to
>> clearly separate reference to the authors' (Web) technologies from
>> reference to the users (assistive) technologies. We suggest that this
>> differentiation be checked throughout the document.
>>
>> Response from Working Group:
>>
>> They now say  "Web content technology"
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 5 web technologies:
> Thanks for the changes. You missed some in Note 4 and in Note 5.
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 14: All of Level 3 not required?
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2284)
>>
>> 2. [referencing] If maintaining that all of Level 3 should not be
>> required, a better explanation is needed for why this is so.
>>
>> Response from Working Group:
>>
>> We recommend that Level AAA not be required for general web content.
>> It is possible for some types of Web pages and Web sites to conform to
>> all Level AAA success criteria. If the requirement were only applied
>> to such content, it would be an appropriate requirement.
>>
>> However, since it will be impossible for some types of Web pages to
>> meet this level of conformance, requiring it for general content will
>> exclude some kinds of functionality from being provided on the web.
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 14 All of Level 3 not required?:
> Thank you, the revised Appendix A provides a satisfactory explanation. 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html> 
> 
> However, we are concerned that this is important information that people 
> may not find, as many people likely will not read Appendix A. Consider 
> repeating it elsewhere or putting a link to it in a place where it is 
> likely to be see by all  -- perhaps with "Understanding Levels of 
> Conformance" at 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/conformance.html#uc-levels-head 
> 
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 19: distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2289)
>>
>> 17. [guideline 2] The difference between 2.2.2 (blinking) and 2.3.1
>> (flashing) is not clear even with the links to definitions, as the
>> definitions are mutually self-referencing and seem just like different
>> degrees of the same thing. Either differentiate more in the SC 
>> themselves,
>> or combine them.
>>
>> Response from Working Group:
>>
>> We have added a definition for flash and clarified the difference
>> between flash and blink both in the definitions and (in longer form)
>> in the understanding document
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 19 distinction between blinking and flashing still 
> isn't clear:
> We have additional feedback on this that we will write up and send as 
> soon as possible.
> [ACTION Sharron, Liam, or Shawn (anyone else?) to write up something 
> more on this based on Justin's email and the EOWG teleconference 
> discussion, see:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes#comment19 ]
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 20: extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2290)
>> ----------------------------
>> Original Comment:
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> 18. [SC 1.2.1] Replace "multimedia alternative to text" with "audio 
>> and/or
>> video alternative to text" since it is possible to gloss text w/ audio
>> only, or w/ silent video only (for instance, sign language) or w/ audio &
>> video together (e.g. video of talking head).
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thank you. Good suggestion.  we have replaced "multimedia alternative
>> to text" with "audio and/or video alternative to text"
>>
>> and fixed the definition to read
>>
>> *audio and/or video alternative to text*
>>     media that presents no more information than is already presented
>> in text (directly or via text alternatives)
>>
>>     Note: an audio and/or video alternative to text is provided for
>> those who benefit from alternate representations of text.  Audio
>> and/or video alternative to text may be audio-only, video-only
>> (including sign-language video), or audio-video.
> 
> EOWG reply on comment 20 extend alternative to text to audio-only or 
> video-only:
> This does not seemed to be changed consistently. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ has
> - 1.1.1... (5) a media _alternative to text_
> - 1.2.1... media is an _alternative to text_
> - Glossary... audio and/or video alternative to text
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation?
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2291)
>>
>> 19. [SC 1.3.1] Most of us had no idea what this meant, and the few who 
>> did
>> had difficulty explaining what the practical implications of this 
>> would be
>> for content development. Do you mean "semantics conveyed through
>> presentation?" Or is it the semantics about the relation between objects?
>> Either one of these, or both, would be more understandable.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> This success criterion speaks both to semantics conveyed through
>> presentation, and semantics about relationships between objects. The
>> wording has been carefully worked out to encompass this without being
>> overly prescriptive. The Working Group did not arrive at alternate
>> language that is more clear. The Understanding document provides more
>> detail and examples to clarify the scope of this success criterion.
> 
> EOWG reply to Comment 21 semantics conveyed through presentation?:
> We debated the scope of SC 1.3.1 and what is meant by "information". 
> There was some concern that this is too broad.
> 
> Additionally, we note that all of the sufficient techniques deal with 
> structure, and perhaps what one might call relationships. And none of 
> the sufficient techniques address information other than structure or 
> relationships. Therefore, some people were uncomfortable including 
> "Information" in the SC. Perhaps this SC should be 1.3.1 Structure and 
> Relationships: Structure and relationships...
> 
> We came up with some specific use cases where we couldn't tell the 
> applicability of this SC, and will send those to you as soon as 
> possible. [ACTION: Liam & Wayne]
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 22: Which page title?
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2292)
>> ----------------------------
>> Original Comment:
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> 20. [SC 2.4.2] Do you mean the title tag or the title that goes in the 
>> H1?
>> Please clarify (even if in some non-HTML specific way).
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> To clarify the expected use of the page title, we have added the
>> following to the Intent section:
>>
>> "User agents make the title of the page easily available to the user
>> for identifying the page. For instance, a user agent may display the
>> page title in the  window title bar or as the name of the tab
>> containing the page."
>>
>> The sufficient techniques for SC 2.4.2 lists the use of the title
>> element in HTML, but not the use of an H1 element. We do not believe
>> that the use of an H1 element is sufficient by itself, since the
>> heading may not be visible at all times. We have added an advisory
>> technique;
>> SEE ABOVE
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 22 Which page title?:
> This resolution does not address our comment for those people who do not 
> know that the HTML title element is displayed in user agents. However, 
> we did find the clarification by drilling down to the techniques 
> example. Therefore, we accept closing this comment; however, we have an 
> additional suggestion: Consider putting at the top levels "pointy 
> brackets" around title, that is: <title>. Suggestions include:
> - the technique H25: Providing a title using the <title> element (HTML)
> - putting an example at the top of Understanding SC 2.4.2
> - under Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.2 put at the top an example of 
> <title...> in HTML
> 
> Rationale: In colloquial use, many people may call the <h1> the page 
> title. Some people might not even know about the HTML title element. 
> Putting <title> will clearly differentiate it from <h1> for those who 
> know HTML. Putting it at the top levels will make it clear right away 
> instead of making them drill down to the example in the technique.
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Comment 23: Please clarify
>> Source: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>>
>> (Issue ID: 2293)
>> ----------------------------
>> Original Comment:
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> 21. [SC 3.1.4] We debated this but could not agree on a common
>> interpretation. Please clarify.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Response from Working Group:
>> ---------------------------------------------
>>
>> We believe that the definition of mechanism in the glossary and the
>> explanation and examples in Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 are
>> sufficient to understand what kinds of mechanisms might satisfy this
>> success criterion. "Mechanism" covers both author-supplied
>> functionality and user-agent or assistive-technology supplied
>> functionality.
> 
> EOWG reply on Comment 23 Please clarify SC 3.1.4:
> We still have difficulty with this one. Can SC 3.1.4 be simplified to: 
> "The expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available." ?
> 
> For background, see 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0078.html and 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0084.html
> 
> ###
> 
> 

-- 
Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
phone: +1-617-395-7664
e-mail: shawn@w3.org

Received on Saturday, 17 November 2007 00:42:02 UTC