Issue

Description

Reviewer

Category

Recommended action

Notes

172

Checkpoint about character set

Request for definition

Close

Resolved by definition  of text

330

Def of programmatically located

Greg V.g

Request for definition

Close

Resolved by JS proposal: phrase does not appear in 3.1 proposal. If it appears elsewhere, definition is still needed in Glossary

495

How evaluate complexity of content

Greg Gay

Untestable

Close

Resolved by JS proposal: suggested use of Readability formulas will resolve issue. This issue Also, comment suggests good techniques using <link>

701

Content review/strategies considered

Greg Lowney

Untestable/not accessibility

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Statement is gone

784

Example: W3C is abbr, not acronym

Correction

Accept

Not yet corrected; will fix in new example

809

Some tech don’t support L1 SC

Andi Snow-Weaver

SC can’t be satisfied

Close

Resolved by JS proposal:

810

Need solution for pronouncing acronyms & abbr

Andi Snow-Weaver

SC can’t be met

Close

Resolved by JS proposal: Change to functional outcome allows diff ways to provide info

811

Move strategies on complexity to appendix for readability

Andi Snow-Weaver

Readability of doc

Close

Resolved by JS proposal. Discuss techniques in Guide doc

812

Misuse of def. of non text content

Andi Snow-Weaver

Correction

Close

Resolved by JS proposal: SC specify what alternative versions are required

813

Benefits should be about accessibility, not ease of authoring

Andi Snow-Weaver

Correction

Accept

Rewrite benefits

814

Clarify benefit of marking abbr and acronyms

Accept

Fixed in Guide doc, but still Needs work in GL

852

Allow text-only variants

Carol Smith

Reinstate WCAG 1.0 allowance for text-only in special cases

Not addressed

May not be appropriate for 3.1 as rewritten by JS, may be a 4.2 issue?

853

Support for specifying meaning in UAAG?

AbI-Project (Aktionsbuendnis für barrierefreie Informationstechnik)

Should be harmonized with UAAG

Stays open

May be resolved by JS proposal:  Change to functional outcome may make this unnecessary

854

3.2 suggested rewording

JS

Not related to 3.1

Close

Resolved by JS, MB, MC, GV proposal (2005-03-28) to reword 3.2: Functional outcomes- not related to 3.1 though

861

WCAG should focus on accessibility & refer writing, etc., to other authorities

Jeroen Visser

Not accessibility issue

Reject

Use Guide Doc & benefits to articulate accessibility issues and benefits

863

Refer to external Ditto

Jeroen Visser

Not accessibility issue

Reject

Use Guide and benefits to articulate accessibility issues & solutions

886

All principle 3 guidelines too subjective- shd be in style guide

US Access Board

Not accessibility issue

Reject

JS proposal provides metrics . Use Guide and benefits to articulate accessibility issues and solutions

930

Differences between business applications and public Web sites

Alex Lee, SAP (via Wendy)

Localization

Stays open

May be resolved by JS proposal: Change to functional outcome could allow different solutions for different languages/locales; need more info

950

Guideline 3 editorial suggestions

James Craig

Correction

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Specific strategies not in proposed GL 3.1

953

How can pronunciation and idiomatic expressions be programmatically determined

James Craig

SC can’t be met

Close

Resolved by JS proposal:

954

Context determines meaning of word?

James Craig

SC can’t be met

Close

Resolved by JS proposal:

956

3.1 Syntax recommendation

James Craig

Editorial

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Items don’t appear in prposed GL

957

When should noun and noun phrases be used?

James Craig

Correction

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : No longer in proposed GL

958

Logic and relationship section is unnecessary

James Craig

Correction

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Item in question no longer in GL proposed

959

Additional examples for 3.1

James Craig

Editorial

Accept

Add proposed example re word “design” for 3.1 L3 SC1

989

“Write clearly” should be part of minimum level of conformance

Royal Nat’l Institute for the Deaf

Add SC at L1

Accept with modification

Commentor’s proposal would constrain content, so not appropriate for L1.  JS proposal includes readability requirements at L2 and L3 plus alternate versions at L2 & 3. Find out if this is acceptable.

1009

Definition of “associated dictionary”

Ian Jacobs

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome: SC no longer requires associated dictionary, term doesn’t appear in proposed GL

1010

Phrase “by themselves as a group”

Ian Jacobs

Editorial

Close

Fixed in 11 February 2005 Internal WD

1011

Definition of “programmatically located”

Ian Jacobs

SC hard to meet

Close

Resolved (for 3.1 only) by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC; phrase no longer in GL as proposed

1048

Comments & questions about “meaning” guideline

Harvey Bingham

Add note to 3.1L2 foreign passages re French Canadian

Stays open

L2 comment not explicitly addressed; L3 re operable content resolved by JS proposal; agreement w/ed. Note re text-only for special cases not addressed : Need info about how to address comment about French Canadian. Text-only variants may be more appropriate for 4.2?

1099

Acronyms cannot always be expanded programmatically

Andi Snow-Weaver

SC can’t be met in all cases

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC

1100

Clarification needed for “meanings and pronunciations of all words”

Andi Snow-Weaver

SC unclear, may be hard or impossible to meet

Stays open

Partially resolved by JS proposal: “Meaning” & “pronunciation” separated into 2 SC. Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC. Still looking into pronunciation issues.

1101

Define what is meant by the “statement” [L3 SC3]

Andi Snow-Weaver

SC unclear

Stays open

Partially resolved by JS proposal: “statement” no longer appears in GL, but need to clarify example 1 as per ASW suggestion

1127

Provide clear representational image on site’s home page

WWAAC

New SC

Reject

Offer as advisory technique in the Guide Doc as way to go beyond what’s required

1128

Alt text shd provide prime information for the user and should distinguish between  salient (most prominent) and non salient  content

WWAAC

New SC

Close

Concern for alt on extraneous/decorative images addressed by GL 1.1 L1 SC4

1129

Provide simple page descriptions as metadata

WWAAC

New SC

Rject

Offer as advisory technique in Guide doc

1134

WCAG 1.0 C14.1 should be L1 and not L3WWAAC

WWAAC

Proposed SC

Stays open

JS proposal introduces an L1 requirement to identify education level of intented audience but constraints on text complexity don’t appear till L2

1146

Character example for 3.1

Watanabe (?)

Proposed example

Accept

Should incorporate the proposed example. Not yet done.

1149

Items in 3.1 apply mainly to English

Watanabe (?)

English-specific

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC for English & other languages. Suggested strategies no longer in GL document

1150

Vocabulary checklist suggestion in 3.1 difficult in some languages

Watanabe (?)

English-specific. SC can’t be met

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC

1162

Programatically located meaning and support

Watanabe (?)

SC can’t be met for some languages/countries.

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC

1217

Should acronyms,etc., be visually distinctive?

? Roverto Scano agrees that they shd be distinct

Proposes technique?

Close

Resolved by JS proposal: 3.1 no longer requires programmatically located, and includes suggestion to make acronyms, etc., visible (Guide doc) R. Scano proposes techniques—refer to HTML and CSS Techs

1228

Issue summary for Guidline 3.1

Close

This is the summary for GL 3.1

1352

GL 3.1 L3 should not be included in WCAG 2.0

Caherine Brys

English-specific. Not accessibility issue

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : L3 SC3 list of strategies is gone! From JS proposal

1397

Abbreviations should be expanded in the text

Catherine Brys

Change L1 SC2

Reject

There’s nothing to prevent authors from expanding acronyms in text. Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC. Constraint on content would make this an L2 requirement in any case.

1398

GL 3.1 L2 SC- Minority or regional languages and dialects

Catherine Brys

SCL2 SC can’t be met for all languages or dialects. Ed note unclear

Stays open

Need way to deal with  languages that don’t have online dictionaries

1399

“Associated dictionary” is ambiguous

Catherine Brys

SC hard to understand, may be hard to meet

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : Functional outcome allows multiple ways to meet SC. “Associated dictionary” not in proposed GL.

1400

Presence of claim doesn’t make site more accessible

Catherine Brys

SC not meaningful

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : “Statement” replaced by SC requiring education level, readability measurements

1401

Make Web page more intuitive, instead of writing help

Catherine Brys

SC hard to understand

Close

Resolved by JS proposal : “instructions and operable content” under L3 is gone. Guideline 2.5 and 3.2 address this concern.

1402

Expansion of abbreviations is general usability practice

Catherine Brys

Not accessibility issue

Stays open

Use Guide Doc and benefits to articulate accessibility issues or delete SC

1403

What is “facilitate unambiguous decoding of characters?”

Catherine Brys

Benefit hard to understand

Accept

Rewrite benefit in GL and Guide doc

1404

Summarizing helps everyone

Catherine Brys

Not accessibility issue (implies)

Close

Resolved by JS proposal “ JS proposal and Guide clarify how summaries help people with LD & cognitive limitations. Find out if this addresses CB’s concern

1405

Menaing of “summary of visual cues that show relationships”?

Catherine Brys

Benefits hard to understand

Accept

Rewrite benefits in GL and Guide Doc

1406

Why include GL 3.1 Example 4?

Catherine Brys

Examples hard to understand

Accept

Revisit examples and clarify how they address the GL

1407

Gl 3.1 Example 7 needs text alternative

Catherine Brys

Correction (example)

Accept

Provide better examples

1424

GL 3.1 wording difficult to understand

Catherine Brys

SC hard to understand

Close

“by themselves as a group” problem fixed in 11 February 2005 Internal WD

1431

Guideline 3.1 EWxample 1 uses controversial use of acronym

David Wooley

Correction

Accept

Fix example 1 to identify W3C correctly as abbr not acronym. Guide doc rovides examples of acronyms.

1435

GL 3.1 Example 7 encourages copyright violation

David Wooley

Correction

Accept

Provide example that doesn’t raise the copyright issue

1446

Add sign language to alternative Add sign language to alternative representationsrepresentations

Ralph Raule, et al.

Implied definition of alternative representations incorrect

Accept

JS proposal introduces Signed video as L3 requirement. Guide doc proposes definition of  alternative versions, but doesn’t specifically reference signed video in Guide. Fix.

1447

Add sign language to alternative representations

Ralph Raule, et al

Change SC to require signed video of key pages or sections of pages

Close

Resolved by JS proposal

1448

Remove Deaf people from beneficiaries of simple language

Ralph Raule, et al

Correction (benefits)

Accept

Fixed in Guide doc, should be fixed in GL as well

1458

GL 3.2.3 L3 (?)

Andrew Clark

n/a

n/a

Comment applies to GL 3.2 not 3.1. Concerns may be resolved by 2005-03028 proposed changes to 3.2 (functional outcomes, JS, MB, MC, GV).

1460

Guideline 3.1 benefit ambiguous phrasing

Sylvia Caras

Benefit hard to understand

Accept

Reword benefits section here and in Guide Doc