W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Issue summary for the guidelines document in general

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:45:31 -0400
Message-ID: <42A758EB.3010000@w3.org>
To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ben and I went through the 61 "General" issues (issues that relate to 
the Guideline document in general. These are *not* issues related to the 
General Techniques document.) We divided the issues among the following 
categories:

1. Editorial
2. Moved to other components
3. Postpone discussion
4. Need proposals and/or discussion
5. Close

Two surveys will be available shortly:
1. Need proposals and/or discussion
2. Close

=====================================================================
Editorial issues:

----
Issue 213 - diversity in examples.
action: editors

----
Issue 216 - numbering proposal
status: by default we've been using "G x.x Lx SCx." Propose that we 
continue using this and don't raise the issue for now.

----
Issue 205 - "Movie" vs. "video"
action: @@ wendy or ben make the edits

----
Issue 432 - Addressing the needs of older people and difficulty 
understanding complex language
Status: Editorial. to be addressed in intro and benefits.
Discussed some in relation to Guideline 2.2 proposals from Christophe.
<http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05>
Determined that we would discuss this benefit on the list.  This is an 
important issue for JIS (issue 1142).
Action: Consolidate issues related to aging into one issue?


=====================================================================
Issues moved to other components:

----
Issue 392 - Better definition of "audience"
status: Kynn's comment is from 2003 (or earlier).  The current 
definition of audience has been in the draft circa 2002, therefore 
Kynn's comment is still applicable.  Editorial. Moved to "introduction" 
component.

----
Issues 400, 508, 515, 553, 1353 are all related to explaining the 
principles.  John is addressing with his work on Introduction. Moved to 
the Introduction component.

----
Issue 478 - are additional examples needed?
Olivier specifically asks about the contrast guideline while Robertos 
ask about extreme changes of context.
Closed the issue. Opened 2 new issues (1528, 1529) on the respective 
guidelines.

----
Issue 543 - Make it easier to find specific topics
Includes suggestions for a topic index, etc.
Moved to "presentation and structure" component.

----
Issue 932 - are screen reader scripts plug-ins?
moved to guideline 4.2


=====================================================================
Issues we should postpone discussion on:

----
Issue 393 - Migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
status: editorial.  Part of Last Call milestone.
Related issues:
issue 501 - understandability and transition questions. concern that the 
document won't be understandable to the audience, which is related to 
issue 392 (question about audience).
issue 502 - concerns about transitioning from 1.0 to 2.0, about the 
materials they've developed to educate people about 1.0, and about some 
of the technical examples that people in their audience would not have 
the ability to implement/approach.
Can postpone discussion, although should begin work on transition 
support materials and wcag 1.0 errata after the June draft. Need to 
discuss how/when/who will be doing the work.

----
Issue 753 - review guidelines for consistency (to do)
Action someone:  review guidelines for consistency in how we address  
primary content or providing alternative (what it takes to meet the 
guideline.  inherent that if have alternative access as part of content 
you satisfy,  or if alternatives are called out in the guideline)

----
969 - General Comments on Principle 1
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=969

Summary: Suggests that designers should be discouraged from asking “What 
is your disability?” and then providing only presentation modes that 
they consider appropriate to this disability. This is relevant to all of 
the checkpoints under this guideline, and it would be particularly 
appropriate to mention this point in the “Best Practice” of checkpoints 
1.1 and 1.2.

Proposed Action:
Suggest that this issue should be addressed at the techniques level and 
revisited after 4.2 and baseline discussions have reached consensus and 
techniques for providing alternative presentations are drafted.

----
1018 - Proposed updated quick tips
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1018

Summary: Proposes an update to the quick tips based on a 2004 WCAG 2.0 
draft.

Proposed Action: Postpone discussion on this until we've reached last 
call. The proposed quick tips are very technology specific and we'll 
need to discuss how these might need to change based on the changes in 
WCAG 2.0. For example, should we have technology-specific WCAG 2.0 quick 
tips?

----
1019 - Divide WCAG 2.0 into guidelines (machine testable) and suggested 
best practices (human testable)
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1019

Summary: This issue suggests that the guidelines should be categorized 
into machine-testable guidelines and human testable best practices, 
leaving no room for gray areas open to interpretation...

Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing the introductory guideline 
text and the requirements document, which outline our goals regarding 
testability and applicability to a wide range of technologies.

----
1025 - Text size
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1025

Summary: Proposes adding a criterion related to increasing the size of text.

Proposed Action: This relates to issues 892 and 1522. 892 includes a 
pending proposal, which, once resolved, should address this issue.

----
1053 - Clarify "alternative versions of sites" (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 11.4)
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1053

Summary: Requests that we clarify the 1.0 checkpoint about alternative 
versions.

Proposed Action: Revisit this when we're closer to last call. Should be 
addressed through the development of techniques describing alternative 
versions.

----
1077 - Cannot assure content will work with unknown future technologies.
1354 - How can future technologies be taken into account
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1077
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1354

Summary: Comments on the impossibility of ensuring that content can work 
with future technologies.

Proposed Action: Suggest that we revisit these issues when we've reached 
consensus on the contents of guidelines 4.1 and 4.2. Seems like we can 
close these as long as the guidelines and SC we end up with adequately 
support the goal described by this principle.

----
1142 - Older persons should be included in addition to the disabled
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1142

Summary: Suggests including references to people who are aging.

Proposed Action: I moved this issue to the introduction component of 
Bugzilla. It includes a proposal from Andi that has not yet been 
discussed and I suggest that this be reviewed in the context of the 
proposals and issue summaries related to the guidelines intro.

----
1275 - Notes and Rationale Document.
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1275

Proposed Action: Propose that this issue will be covered through the 
creation of the "guide to the guidelines" documents we've been 
discussing recently. Leave open for now.

----
1363 - WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1363

Summary: This issue suggests that the guidelines are losing sight of 
the  aim to address the needs of a many different audiences.

Proposed Action: Revisit when we're closer to last call. Without more 
complete techniques documents, general techniques, guide docs, etc., 
it's difficult to get a good sense of how well we have or haven't 
addressed the needs of our audiences.

----
1420 and 1421 Guidelines/SC not balanced in level of detail
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1420
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1421

Summary: Points out that some guidelines/SC are more specific than others.

Proposed Action: These are editorial issues that should be addressed 
when we're closer to last call. (review for consistency)

=====================================================================
Issues that need a proposals and/or discussion

----
Issue 486 - sync with IMS ACCLIP and Issue 846 - add metadata concepts 
to WCAG 2.0
I think we need more information, but we should also discuss if we want 
to address this issue.  We're waiting for a proposal from Liddy and 
Jutta.   Propose that if we don't have a proposal by the end of June we 
close these issues since they probably won't be formulated in time for a 
Last Call draft. 

Proposed action:  wendy send note to Liddy and Jutta to let them know 
that we need a proposal ASAP. (I reminded Liddy of this when I saw her 
in Japan in May, so she knows we're waiting for her).

----
Issue 741 - Address Digital Rights Management, Visual Verification issues
Action someone: do the research and write a proposal.

----
Issue 834 - WCAG 2.0 Timeline and revised WCAG 1.0
Request to publish WCAG 1.1 by November 2004.
Since we didn't and aren't planning on it. Propose that we close the 
issue by telling them we're finishing WCAG 2.0 and will be providing 
transition support materials for 1.0 to 2.0. we've also had requests to 
update the WCAG 1.0 errata and we should discuss when that fits on our 
timeline.

Proposed action: someone take an action item to write proposals for 
errata related to deprecated and clarified items in WCAG 1.0

----
1007 - Requirements for user agents, not content authors
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1007

Summary: This issue suggests that a number of the requirements still 
seem to be requirements for user agents, not content authors. These 
include, but are not limited to, parts of Guideline 2 and 3.2 SC 2 
bullets 2 and 3.

Proposed Action:
While many of the criterion have changed since this comment was 
submitted, they still seem to overlap with user agent requirements. 
However, I'm not sure we can/should remove this overlap as the author 
may need to evaluate the requirement based on the technology in use. For 
example, an author might determine that user agent support for pausing 
moving or time based content is covered by UAAG for HTML, but that 
including a control in a custom interface that they are creating may be 
necessary for an applet or plug-in.

I propose that we check with Ian to see if the changes made since last 
year and the above rationale address his concerns.

----
Issue 1135 - Clarify relationship between ATAG, UAAG, and WCAG

Summary: Issue suggests that the relationship between these three 
guidelines was not clearly explained in WCAG 1.0 and suggests we clarify 
in 2.0.

Proposed Action: Since these comments were submitted, references to ATAG 
have been added to the introduction. However, the relationship to UAAG 
does not seem to be well described. Propose moving this issue to the 
Introduction component of Bugzilla and drafting something similar to the 
section in the intro titled "Authoring Tools" specific to the role of 
user agent support as it relates to WCAG 2.0.

----
1203 - managing focus on refresh
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1203

Summary: Suggests an addition to WCAG about the ability for the UA to 
maintain focus and position when content is updated or refreshed.

Proposed Action: This seems to be partially covered by guideline 3.2 and 
definition of extreme change in context. It is also partially addressed 
by UAAG, the DHTML Road map and some of the upcoming changes to XHTML. 
The reviewer also questions whether WCAG is the appropriate place to 
address the issue. We should discuss whether this is something we should 
specifically address in WCAG 2.0.

----
1445 - Text is not an alternative to sign language for the deaf
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1445

Summary: Suggests that WCAG 2.0 make it clear that there is a portion of 
the deaf population for which text is not accessible.

Proposed Action: Suggest that we discuss this issue. Sign language is 
currently required at level 3 for descriptions of multimedia, but not 
for other types of content. We can clarify some of the issues raised 
here in the guide documents or in general techniques, but including a 
requirement that all content be available in sign language seems beyond 
the scope of what WCAG 2.0 can reasonably require.

=====================================================================
Issues we can close

----
Issue 503 - a compliment!
Action: pat selves on backs.
Closed to get our #s down.

----
Issue 659 - proposed format for examples
His suggestion is similar to the format we are using for techniques. 
Propose that we close the issue since this is too much detail for 
examples in the guidelines. Also, we'll have more explanatory info in 
the Guide.
Action: close

----
Issue 777 - "O'Reilly" version of WCAG 2.0
While this is a great idea, it may not be part of our deliverables for 
Recommendation or it might be partly covered by the draft or it might be 
best handled by the documents EOWG produce.
Propose that we close the issue.

----
Issue 960 - Meaning of "equivalent"
RNID writes, "Where an alternative presentation mode is provided, 
conformance to these guidelines should require that the user experience 
be equivalent to that provided by any other presentation mode, not a 
“best-effort” substitute with reduced functionality or ease-of-access."
Not all alternatives will provide an equivalent experience.  Believe 
that in our attempt to write SC as functional outcomes, we have been 
successful at describing what will make a good alternative. also, this 
will be dependent on the technique(s) employed to create the 
alternative.  Therefore, do not believe a separate SC is required, 
because it seems to flow throughout the guidelines/SC.
Propose that we close the issue with this (or similar) explanation.

----
964 - Avatars
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1449

Summary: The reviewers advocate the inclusion of additional benefits 
describing streaming video and avatar technology for the purpose of 
delivering sign language content.

Proposed Action:

I think this one is already addressed in 1.1 benefits.

<blockquote 
cite="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20050601/#d0e722">
 People who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or who are having trouble 
understanding audio information for any reason can read the text 
presentation or have it translated and presented as sign language by 
assistive technology.
</blockquote>

As the use of avatars and automatic translation of content into sign 
language becomes more common, the guide to the informative guide and 
techniques documents could be expanded to include additional details 
about sign language avatars.

Propose that we close this issue.

----
975 - Adjusting volume, indicating no audio for a video clip
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=975

Summary: This issue suggests that we should:
a) ensure that it is possible for volume to be adjusted over a wide range
b) use captions to indicate video that does not include sound

Proposed Action:
I think the issue of audio-contrast is covered by guideline 1.4 and that 
volume range is a user agent issue. Propose that close the first part of 
this issue and move the specific suggestions on captioning to general 
techniques.

----
1175 - Level of language is too abstract
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1175

Summary: Suggests that documents need review by technical writer with 
focus on using concise and plain language.

Proposed Action: Suggest that the plain language rewrites of many of our 
guidelines over the course of the last year addresses this issue for the 
guidelines. However, since the issue was primarily raised against the 
techniques documents, we should move this issue to the techniques 
component and review this again when the techniques drafts are nearer to 
completion.

----
1179 - Recommendations should include users of legacy technologies
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1179

Summary: This issue suggests that guidelines should address legacy 
technologies.

Proposed Action: This seems to be covered through baseline and the 
information we included in the June 1 draft regarding conformance 
requirements. Baselines may or may not include legacy technologies for 
conformance with WCAG 2.0. In addition, guideline 4.1 currently allows 
for exceptions to address backward compatibility and repair techniques 
will provide additional details about user agent support. Suggest that 
we close this issue.

----
1180 - Include guideline on changing focus without warning
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1180

Proposed Action: Seems to be covered by guideline 3.2 and definition of 
extreme change in context. Suggest that we close this issue.

----
1236 - Issue summary for WCAG 2.0 General issues
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1236

Proposed Action: Closed by this summary.

----
1259 - Guideline needed prohibiting blinking objects
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1259

Proposed Action: Close. Already covered by GL 2.2 L2 SC1.

----
1353 - Principles are vague and difficult to understand
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1353

Proposed Action: Close. (Duplicate of Issue #400)

----
1356 - Phrase success criteria as requirements rather than statements
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1356

Summary: Suggests that SC be worded as requirements, using "must" rather 
than "as" statements.

Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing recent decisions to word SC to 
describe functional outcomes.

----
1367 - Who is responsible for accessibility if there are multiple levels 
of databases?
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1367

Summary: This issue asks how the principles apply to cases where a 
database is queried by another database and who is responsible for the 
accessibility of the resulting content.

Proposed Action: Close this issue, citing recent decisions to word SC to 
describe functional outcomes. In the case of the example raised, the 
author responsible for writing the queries and formatting the output 
would be responsible for the accessibility of the end result.

----
1422 - automatic refresh is not a type of content
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1422

Summary: points out an editorial error in the benefits section

Proposed Action: Revise this sentence to read, "Examples of 
functionality that must meet the success criteria for this guideline:" 
and close this issue.

----
1423 - wording: replace 'where' with 'if'
http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1423

Summary: points out an editorial errors in level 2 SC for 2.5 and two 
level 3 SC for 3.1

Proposed Action: Close. Specific language is either no longer present in 
the guidelines or subsumed by pending proposals.

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--



-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 20:45:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC