W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 2007

WCAG 2.0 review - Perceivable and Operable

From: Kelly Ford <kford@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:45:14 -0700
Message-ID: <A07B77F32153944CA64E551D7C23674E04EFA634@WIN-MSG-20.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Guideline 1.1 Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that
it can be changed into other forms people need such as large print,
Braille, speech,

symbols or simpler language



This seems a bit watered down to me in the sense that it sounds like the
purpose of the providing of the alternative text here is largely for
conversion.  This ignores at minimum the population of folks who for
whatever reason do not use pictures but are not doing any kind of
conversion.  As written this just seems too vague to me.


1.3.3 Size, Shape, Location: Instructions provided for understanding and
operating content do not rely on shape, size, visual location, or
orientation of

components. (Level A)



I don't yet have language to suggest but you have to read a lot of the
supporting material to me to really understand the point this guideline
is trying to make.  It is too abstract as written.


1.4.4 Resize text: Visually rendered text can be resized without 

assistive technology

 up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of content or
functionality. (Level AA)



This one depends in large part on supporting technology where the user
agent is going to do the resizing.  If I'm new to W3C that's not
completely clear until again I read more of the supporting material and
this might be confusing to some.





I'm in agreement with the items called out by CL so won't restate those.
One other item dit get my attention.

2.2.5 Interruptions: Interruptions, such as updated content, can be
postponed or suppressed by the user, except interruptions involving an 

emergency. (Level AAA)


I think this should be bumped up to level II.  There are enough
techniques to do this for the majority of cases where it can be a
problem that don't detract from presentation that I think it is worth
moving up.  Admittedly, AT has gotten better about handling this but it
seems like level II to me.



General Comment:

Reading through all these guidelines I'm struck with the general
impression that assistive technology is given a higher priority than
user agents.  This is perhaps somewhat subtle but I guess my point,
similar to what I now see Jim said, is that by and large the AT gets the
majority of what it presents from the user agent and I'm not sure the
guidelines represent this as well as they could.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 17:48:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:35 UTC