W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Comments on WCAG 2.0

From: Chris O'Kennon <chris@vipnet.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:24:50 -0400
Message-ID: <A466B58150DD0F4FB6FE4FDEECB428F17612@iexch1.vipnet.org>
To: "'Bill Mason'" <w3c@accessibleinter.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I was also a little confused about Checkpoint 1.1 in the same manner, but I
was in the process of re-reading it to see if I missed something in the
definitions.

Chris O'Kennon
Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/
VIPNet Portal Architect
www.myvirginia.org
 
______________________________________
"When people are free to do as they please, 
they usually imitate each other."


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Mason [mailto:w3c@accessibleinter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:19 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Comments on WCAG 2.0



Checkpoint 1.1

Minimum success criteria: I cannot fathom point 2 after reading it several 
times.  If the ''non-text content...can not be expressed in words" but 
success is defined as having "a descriptive label [that] presents all of 
the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text 
content", then you've expressed the content in words.

Example 1 has a right arrow icon whose text equivalent is "Next Slide" but 
the ALT tag for the image reads only "Next".

Checkpoint 1.2

Minimum success criteria: Point 2 exempts news and emergency information 
from captioning, yet below in Example 2 a news story about an emergency is 
captioned.

Checkpoint 1.5

Level 2 success criteria: Point 2 calls for abbreviations and acronyms to 
be identified "where they occur".  Later, checkpoint 4.3 will call for 
identification only in the first instance where they appear.

Example 2: W3C is an abbreviation, not an acronym.  At the top of the draft 
in the copyright line, W3C is correctly tagged <abbr>.

General observation:

Many checkpoints have a statement from the author asserting that the 
document has been reviewed etc. as a step for Level 2 success.  I am 
unclear how claiming a certain level of conformance will apply if such a 
statement is not applicable.  Example: I meet level 3 in all criteria 
except Checkpoint 3.5.  This checkpoint at level 2 requires me to state 
that the user is warned of essential inconsistent or unpredictable 
responses.  Now, if there are no such responses in the site, I have nothing 
to state.  And therefore without a statement (as I currently read the 
draft) I cannot claim level 2 success.  Now, what level of conformance can 
the site claim as a whole?  Level 3 because 3.5 does not apply to 
me?  Level 1+ because I have not achieved level 2 in this checkpoint?  I 
believe this whole area needs to be clarified in the draft.

Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
w3c@accessibleinter.net
http://www.accessibleinter.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:24:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT