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

Survey for General Issues

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:57:11 -0600
Message-ID: <43A9B397.4040006@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

A survey for the open issues in the "general" component of our issues 
list is available at: <http://tinyurl.com/9rmbo>
Results will be discussed at tomorrow's telecon if time permits.

Here's a summary of the open issues with proposed resolutions:

Issue 205 - Ordering of checkpoints

    [26]Issue 205 Despite the priority scheme, people feel that the
    order of the checkpoints indicates some sort of priority or
    preference. Oftentimes, people feel that because the first
    checkpoint requires text equivalents there is an emphasis on making
    the web accessible for people with visual disabilities.

      [26] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=205>

    Close with comment:

      Each of the principles, guidelines, and success criteria represent
      concepts that apply to all Web-based content. The working group
      does not feel that there would be significant benefit to
      reordering the guidelines at this point in time.



Issue 213 - Diversity in examples

    [28]Issue 213 Most of the informative examples for each checkpoint
    are GUI-oriented. We need more diverse examples, e.g., speech
    interfaces, otherwise we will fall into the WCAG 1.0 trap of being
    general on the surface but assuming GUI/HTML-dominated Web
    underneath.

      [28] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=213>

    Close with comment:

      Since this issue was raised (pre-2002), examples have been revised
      significantly. Therefore, this issue has been overcome by events.



Issue 261 - Numbering Proposal

    [30]Issue 261 Comments related to previous numbering schemes.

      [30] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=261>

    Close with comment:

      This issue has been overcome by events. As of the 23 November,
      2005 WD, success criterion are numbered sequentially under each
      guideline.



Issue 405 - Understanding which HTML elements to use w/out reading
    techniques

    [32]Issue 405 Kynn Bartlett writes: Because this seems so open-ended
    -- as with 1.1 (text-equiv) -- I would want know what exactly this
    checkpoint requires me to do. For example, there are some tags which
    are rarely used in HTML 4.01 by anyone -- are those required if they
    convey structural information? Does this checkpoint ban the use of
    "b"? Help me understand it, without going into techniques --
    ideally, someone (like me) who understands HTML 4.01 should be able
    to "derive" the techniques document from reading the guidelines. I
    don't get it, though.

      [32] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=405>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. As of the 23 November 2005 WD, this
      information is readily available in the How to meet documents.



Issue 432 - Addressing the needs of older people and difficulty
    understanding complex language

    [34]Issue 432 recommends improvements to the user needs section of
    the introduction.

      [34] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=432>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. This section no longer appears in the
      23 November 2005 working draft. The current introduction
      discusses, "a wide range of people with disabilities, including
      blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning
      difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech
      difficulties, and others."



Issue 501 - Understandability of WCAG 2.0

    [36]Issue 501 includes miscellaneous comments on the
    understandability of WCAG 2.0.

      [36] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=501>

    These comments range from positive to negative. However, I think the
    addition of Understanding WCAG 2.0 and the How to meet documents
    close these issues.

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. The addition of Understanding WCAG 2.0
      and the How to meet documents close these issues.



Issue 741 - Address Digital Rights Management, Visual Verification
    issues

    [38]Issue 741 is a request from EOWG to include information about
    visual verification mechanisms.

      [38] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=741>

    Seems that this is currently a loophole in our guidelines as an
    alternative to the function is not currently required by either
    1.1.3 or 4.2.1. This needs some additional thought, but here's an
    idea for addressing this. Comments invited.

    Proposed: Add a new situation to [39]How to Meet 1.1.3.

      [39] <http://tinyurl.com/bxe5v>

    Situation C: If providing text alternatives that serve the same
    purpose as the functional non-text content would invalidate the
    purpose of the functional non-text content, the following would be
    sufficient:
      * Providing a text alternative that identifies the purpose of
        the functional non-text content
        AND
      * providing an alternative to the function of the non-text content

    Include references cited in this issue under related resources for
    How to meet 1.1.3.



Issue 753 - review guidelines for consistency (to do)

    [41]Issue 753 is an action to 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)

      [41] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=753>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. Alternatives are addressed in
      Guideline 4.2.



Issue 834 - WCAG 2.0 Timeline and revised WCAG 1.0

    [43]Issue 834 is a request for the WG to release an interim WCAG 1.1
    while working on WCAG 2.0.

      [43] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=834>

    Close with comment:

      This has been discussed a number of times during the development
      of WCAG 2.0. At this point in time, the working group feels it is
      more important to continue work toward releasing WCAG 2.0 than to
      divert resources toward a revised WCAG 1.0.



Issue 846 - metadata concepts in WCAG 2.0

    [45]Issue 846 is a request for including metadata concepts in WCAG
    2.0.

      [45] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=846>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. Techniques related to metadata are
      included in a few places in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document.
      Metadata techniques that relate to WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 13.2 are
      included in How to meet 3.1.5.



Issue 969 - General comments on principle 1

    [47]Issue 969 discusses the use of alternative presentations and
    suggests that WCAG 2.0 provide increased focus on the overall
    concept of abilities and preference.

      [47] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=969>

    Close with comment:

      A placeholder technique on style switchers is included in How to
      Meet 1.3.5 and the need for alternative versions is addressed in
      Guideline 4.2.



Issue 1007 - General comments on principle 1

    [49]Issue 1007 states, "A number of the requirements still seem to
    me 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."

      [49] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1007>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. The WCAG 2.0 success criterion have
      been reviewed for overlap with UAAG. Many of the success criterion
      include "programmatically determined" requirements, which require
      authors ensure that some aspect of the content they are authoring
      can be recognized by user agents, including assistive
      technologies.



Issue 1019 - Divide WCAG 2.0 into guidelines (machine testable) and
    suggested best practices (human testable)

    [51]Issue 1019 suggests dividing WCAG 2.0 into two guidelines, which
    can be measured and tested and suggest best practices, which can
    only be tested by a person.

      [51] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1019>

    The current introduction to WCAG 2.0 states, "The Working Group
    believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be
    done by computer programs or by people who understand this document.
    When multiple people who understand WCAG 2.0 test the same content
    using the same success criteria, the same results should be
    obtained."

    Decline with comment:

      The working group does not feel that requiring only those things
      which can be machine tested would adequately serve the needs of
      individuals with disabilities on the Web.



Issue 1053 - Clarify "alternative versions of sites" (WCAG 1.0
    Checkpoint 11.4)

    [53]Issue 1053 is a request to (1) Clarify the phrase (and following
    note) in WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 11.4 "after best efforts..." (in WCAG
    1.0 Errata?) and (2) Ensure that WCAG 2.0 is clear on alternative
    versions/alternative sites. Should we address the proliferation of
    text-only solutions?

      [53] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1053>

    Close with comment:

      This is overcome by events. Guideline 4.2 and the corresponding
      How to Meet documents address this issue.



Issue 1077 - Cannot assure content will work with unknown future
    technologies.

    [55]Issue 1077 states, "Working with future technologies is an
    impossible bar to meet."

      [55] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1077>

    Close with comment:

      Principles themselves are not requirements. The guidelines and
      success criterion under principle 4 have been revised
      significantly since this issue was raised.



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

    [57]Issue 1135 states, "Working with future technologies is an
    impossible bar to meet."

      [57] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1135>

    Close with comment:

      The 23 November 2005 introduction to WCAG 2.0 points to the
      Essential Components of Web Accessibility
      (http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components). It also includes a
      section on authoring tools.



Issue 1141 - Usability Issues and WCAG 2.0

    [59]Issue 1141 includes a number of comments related to usability
    and accessibility.

      [59] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1141>

    This was discussed at the 7 October 2004 telecon, but not resolution
    was recorded. Suggest closing with comments:
     1. the working group charter limits our work to accessibility
        guidelines
     2. industry and others are concerned about where usability
        guidelines might lead



Issue 1181 - “Perceivable”, “Operable”, “Understandable”, and
    “Robust” may be confusing for readers

    [61]Issue 1181 raises issues with “Perceivable”, “Operable”,
    “Understandable”, and “Robust”

      [61] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1181>

    Close with the following comment:

      These terms are explained in greater detail in the Introduction as
      well as in the Introduction to WCAG 2.0
      (http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20).



Issue 1203 - managing focus on refresh

    [63]Issue 1181 asks some questions about focus and refresh.

      [63] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1203>

    Close with the following comment:

      These issues are addressed in the 23 November 2005 working draft
      of Guideline 3.2 and the corresponding How to Meet documents
      (3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.5).



Issue 1275 - Notes and Rationale Document.

    [65]Issue 1275 asks for additional notes and rationale for WCAG 2.0.

      [65] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1275>

    Close with the following comment:

      This is overcome by events. The 23 November 2005 working draft
      references Understanding WCAG 2.0 which includes additional
      information about guidelines, success criterion, intent,
      techniques, conformance, related resources, etc.



Issue 1363 - WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience

    [67]Issue 1363 asserts that WCAG 2.0 is too technical for its
    diverse audience.

      [67] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1363>

    Close with the following comment:

      Understanding WCAG 2.0 and the How to Meet documents did not exist
      when this issue was raised. Please review these documents to see
      they meet the needs you identified.



Issues 1420 and 1421 - Guidelines and SC not balance in level of
    detail

    [69]Issue 1420 and [70]Issue 1421 comment that both the guidelines
    and SC aren't balanced in terms of level of detail. The reviewer
    does not provide suggestions for how this should be addressed.

      [69] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1420>
      [70] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1421>

    Decline with the following comment:

      It's not clear how this would be addressed. Because of the nature
      of Web content and the technologies used to create it, some
      requirements will apply more broadly than others. Please provide
      specific suggestions for addressing this concern if you feel it is
      still an issue.



Issue 1540 - WCAG becoming too technical for its diverse audience

    [72]Issue 1540 states, "GL 1.1, 1.2, and 4.2 don't state explicitly
    that text alternatives must also be changed when content changes."

      [72] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1540>
      [73] <http://tinyurl.com/bpvn3>
      [74] <http://tinyurl.com/aq4f6>



Issue 1558 - Principle 4

    [76]Issue 1558 includes two proposed changes to the test of principle
    4.

      [76] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1558>

    Current: Principle 4: Content must be robust enough to work with
    current and future technologies.

    Two options proposed:
     1. Content must be robust enough to work with current and
        anticipated technologies.
     2. Content must be robust enough to work with current technologies
        and support specifications for work with future technologies



Issue 1576 - Multiple language versions of content

    [78]Issue 1576 suggests including information about the availability
    of content in several languages.

      [78] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1576>

    Propose: Add an optional technique to How to meet 3.1.5 that reads,
    "Providing content in multiple languages."



Issue 1589 - examples do not identify success criteria

    [80]Issue 1589

      [80] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1589>

    Close with comment:

      This issue has been overcome by events. As of the 23 November,
      2005 WD, examples are included in the How to Meet documents.



Issue 1757 - Mark sections as normative or informative

    [82]Issue 1757 Under each section heading in WCAG 2.0 there should
    be a statement asserting whether the section is normative or
    informative. For example, under Introduction, "This section is
    informative", or under "Conformance", "This section is normative".
    This would be consistent with the practice followed by some other
    W3C specifications and would help to distinguish normative from non-
    normative material.

      [82] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1757>

    Propsed: Accept prposed revisions and close this issue.



Issue 378 - Interface Controls applied to the Content

    [84]Issue 378 includes a proposal to reword guideline (now principle)
    2.

      [84] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=378>

    Close with comment:

      This issue has been overcome by events. The text in question has
      been revised somewhat since the issue was raised and the working
      group feels that the use of "element" in this context is not an
      problem.



Issue 695 - content and controls the same as interface elements?

    [86]Issue 695 asks questions about "interface elements" and
    "controls."

      [86] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=695>

    Close with comment:

      This issue has been overcome by events. The text in question has
      been revised significantly since this issue was raised.
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 19:57:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT