W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2010

EOWG comments on UAAG 2.0 Working Draft 17 June 2010

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:25:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4C53516F.9080804@w3.org>
To: public-uaag2-comments@w3.org
CC: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Dear UAAG Working Group,

Thank you for the opportunity to review User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 W3C Working Draft 17 June 2010
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-UAAG20-20100617/>

EOWG has several suggestions from an education and outreach perspective, below.

1. "Handles" for Principles, and probably also Guidelines.

We applaud the use of "handles" for each success criteria (for example, "Global Volume" in "3.7.1 Global Volume: The user can globally set volume"). We strongly suggest providing such handles for each of the principles. Please also consider providing handles for the guidelines as well.

2. Consider ordering SC by Level.

Consider ordering the success criteria under each guideline by level, that is, A then AA then AAA. Most are; however, some are not, including:
3.8.1 Level A
3.8.2 Level AA
3.8.3 Level AAA
3.8.4 Level AA

3. Make SC handles headings.

To facilitate skimming and navigation by screen reader users and others, please consider making the success criteria handles headings. (probably inline, not changing the current visual formatting)

4. WCAG version.

Check references to 1.0 (as opposed to 2.0 or no version number) -- do they really only apply to WCAG 1.0? For example, "Repair content inserted in the document object should conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]." and "Both in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] and in this document..."

Check that WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 1.0 Techniques are in Appendix C: References, but not WCAG 2 -- are these errors?

For things that specifically apply to WCAG 2 and not 1.0, consider specifying "WCAG 2" (not 2.0 in case there is a 2.1 version); for example, in "1.1.1... equivalent to WCAG Level A success criteria."

5. UAAG Version and Techniques.

Check references to UAAG 1.0, such as "The Techniques document [UAAG10-TECHS] lists some markup known to affect accessibility that user agents can recognize." -- is this an error?

Check references to UAAG techniques, e.g.:
- "...and a rich collection of sufficient techniques and resource links."
- "...better implement the techniques."
- "...including the advisory techniques.."
- "...consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques..."
We thought there weren't UAAG 2.0 techniques.

6. Link to Overview.

Please add a link in the Abstract and in the introduction to the UAAG Overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.php
(For example, see WCAG http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#abstract & http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#intro )

7. Format of glossary links.

We suggest formatting the links to glossary items so that they do not stand out visually as much; for example, as is in WCAG http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ where they are the same color as the text and have quiet underline, then turn blue and solid underlined with focus.

8. Glossary.

Consider ways to improve usability of the glossary, especially for screen reader users and non-keyboard users. For example, consider "[top of glossary]" links, and maybe headings for each letter.

There are many formatting &/or code problems in the Glossary causing inconsistent spacing between terms; for example:
 <dt class="glossary">&nbsp;</dt>
   <dd class="glossary">&nbsp;</dd>
 <dt class="glossary"><a name="def-content" id="def-content"><dfn>content (Web content)</dfn></a></dt>

Under glossary terms where there are lists, we recommend getting rid of the space between the sentences and the lists. (This improves proximity.) For example, instead of:
"
*assistive technology*
An assistive technology: 

1. relies on services...
2. provides services beyond...

Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the context of this document include the following:

- screen magnifiers,...
- screen readers,...
"

close up the spacing like this:
"
*assistive technology*
An assistive technology: 
1. relies on services...
2. provides services beyond...
Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the context of this document include the following:
- screen magnifiers,...
- screen readers,...
"

9. Appendix B.

For "Appendix B: How to refer to UAAG 2.0 from other documents" please consider not duplicating content that is elsewhere, and instead pointing to "Referencing and Linking to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents" at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html>. We are happy to consider edit suggestions for that page.

10. Appendix E: Checklist

We are interested in what you have in mind here. EOWG has been working on defining enhancements to How to Meet WCAG 2.0: A customizable quick reference... <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/> (some of which are collected at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wcag2-checklist.html )

It would be good to coordinate on theses related items.

11. Appendix F: Comparison of UAAG 1.0 guidelines to UAAG 2.0

Please consider making this an external document, not an appendix to the main TR doc. Note http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/from10/comparison/

12. Consistency, typos, copyediting.

Most of the guidelines are consistent in tone (e.g., "Provide xyz..."), except: "The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion." (Note WCAG's similar guidelines is worded: "Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.")

Most of the Guidelines start with the word "Guideline", such as "Guideline 1.1 Ensure that non-Web-based functionality is accessible." "Guideline" is missing from "5.4 The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion."

Most of the success criteria have a colon after the "handle", such as "1.3.1 Accessibility Features: Implement and cite in the conformance claim...". A colon is missing from a few of them: "3.1.1 Identify Presence of Alternative Content The user...", "4.5.1 Change Preference Settings The user...", and "5.3.6 Appropriate Language If characteristics..."; and several have periods instead of colons, including 4.5.6, 4.5.7, 4.9.7, 4.9.8, 4.9.10, and 4.9.11.

Some of the colons are included in <strong>, and others are not. For example:
<strong class="handle">4.6.4 Alert on No Match: </strong>The...
<strong class="handle">4.7.5 Direct activation</strong>: direct...

Some are missing a space after the colon. For example: "4.5.4 Portable Preference Settings:The user..."

After the colon should be a capital letter; some are not, such as "4.7.5 Direct activation: direct..."

Capitalization of the "handles" is inconsistent. Most are title/headline-style capitalization (e.g., "Global Volume"), however some are not, such as "4.9.10 Scale and position alternative media tracks.", "5.4.1 Control default focus", and "5.4.2 Unpredictable focus".

Consider avoiding "e.g.," and always writing out "for example".

Duplication of "(Level A)" in the handle and then at the end seems like an error in SC such as "1.1.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Non-Web-based user agent... success criteria. (Level A)" (because the Level is only at the end for most SC)
Consider formatting the first one differently, such as: "1.1.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible at Level A: Non-Web-based user agent... success criteria. (Level A)"

Most lists under SC are spaced nicely right under the sentence that introduces them; however, some are not, such as:
"3.1.3 Browse and Render: The user can browse the alternatives, switch between them, and render them according to the following (Level A):
[too much space]
- synchronized alternatives...
"

Consider getting a skilled technical editor to suggest specific ways to simplify the language, for example:
* "Three of the principles are congruent to..." -> "Three of the principles are the same as..." or "Three of the principles are similar to..."
* "The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion." -> "Make the user agent behave in predictable ways." (note earlier comment about consistent tone)

[/end comments]

Important notes:

* Many in EOWG did not have the chance to review this draft. Please let us know when there is an updated Editors' Draft that we can review before Last Call.

* Most of the issues above were discussed in one EOWG teleconference, and a few added as these were being typed up. They do not necessarily represent consensus among all of EOWG.

Regards,

~Shawn Henry, EOWG Chair
for EOWG <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EOWG-members.html>

p.s. Thanks to Sylvie Duchateau for many of these comments.



-----
Shawn Lawton Henry
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
e-mail: shawn@w3.org
phone: +1.617.395.7664
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 22:25:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:57 GMT