Re: EOWG comments on UAAG 2.0 Working Draft 17 June 2010

FYI


On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear UAAG Working Group,
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to review User Agent Accessibility
> Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 W3C Working Draft 17 June 2010
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-**UAAG20-20100617/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-UAAG20-20100617/>
> >
>
> EOWG has several suggestions from an education and outreach perspective,
> below.
>
> 1. "Handles" for Principles, and probably also Guidelines.
>
> We applaud the use of "handles" for each success criteria (for example,
> "Global Volume" in "3.7.1 Global Volume: The user can globally set
> volume"). We strongly suggest providing such handles for each of the
> principles. Please also consider providing handles for the guidelines as
> well.
>
> 2. Consider ordering SC by Level.
>
> Consider ordering the success criteria under each guideline by level, that
> is, A then AA then AAA. Most are; however, some are not, including:
> 3.8.1 Level A
> 3.8.2 Level AA
> 3.8.3 Level AAA
> 3.8.4 Level AA
>
> 3. Make SC handles headings.
>
> To facilitate skimming and navigation by screen reader users and others,
> please consider making the success criteria handles headings. (probably
> inline, not changing the current visual formatting)
>
> 4. WCAG version.
>
> Check references to 1.0 (as opposed to 2.0 or no version number) -- do
> they really only apply to WCAG 1.0? For example, "Repair content inserted
> in the document object should conform to the Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]." and "Both in the Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] and in this document..."
>
> Check that WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 1.0 Techniques are in Appendix C: References,
> but not WCAG 2 -- are these errors?
>
> For things that specifically apply to WCAG 2 and not 1.0, consider
> specifying "WCAG 2" (not 2.0 in case there is a 2.1 version); for example,
> in "1.1.1... equivalent to WCAG Level A success criteria."
>
> 5. UAAG Version and Techniques.
>
> Check references to UAAG 1.0, such as "The Techniques document
> [UAAG10-TECHS] lists some markup known to affect accessibility that user
> agents can recognize." -- is this an error?
>
> Check references to UAAG techniques, e.g.:
> - "...and a rich collection of sufficient techniques and resource links."
> - "...better implement the techniques."
> - "...including the advisory techniques.."
> - "...consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory
> techniques..."
> We thought there weren't UAAG 2.0 techniques.
>
> 6. Link to Overview.
>
> Please add a link in the Abstract and in the introduction to the UAAG
> Overview http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/**uaag.php<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag.php>
> (For example, see WCAG http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#**abstract<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#abstract>&
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#**intro <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#intro> )
>
> 7. Format of glossary links.
>
> We suggest formatting the links to glossary items so that they do not
> stand out visually as much; for example, as is in WCAG
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ where they are the same color as the text and
> have quiet underline, then turn blue and solid underlined with focus.
>
> 8. Glossary.
>
> Consider ways to improve usability of the glossary, especially for screen
> reader users and non-keyboard users. For example, consider "[top of
> glossary]" links, and maybe headings for each letter.
>
> There are many formatting &/or code problems in the Glossary causing
> inconsistent spacing between terms; for example:
> <dt class="glossary">&nbsp;</dt>
>   <dd class="glossary">&nbsp;</dd>
> <dt class="glossary"><a name="def-content" id="def-content"><dfn>content
> (Web content)</dfn></a></dt>
>
> Under glossary terms where there are lists, we recommend getting rid of
> the space between the sentences and the lists. (This improves proximity.)
> For example, instead of:
> "
> *assistive technology*
> An assistive technology:
> 1. relies on services...
> 2. provides services beyond...
>
> Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the context of
> this document include the following:
>
> - screen magnifiers,...
> - screen readers,...
> "
>
> close up the spacing like this:
> "
> *assistive technology*
> An assistive technology: 1. relies on services...
> 2. provides services beyond...
> Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the context of
> this document include the following:
> - screen magnifiers,...
> - screen readers,...
> "
>
> 9. Appendix B.
>
> For "Appendix B: How to refer to UAAG 2.0 from other documents" please
> consider not duplicating content that is elsewhere, and instead pointing to
> "Referencing and Linking to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents" at <
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/**linking.html<http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html>>.
> We are happy to consider edit suggestions for that page.
>
> 10. Appendix E: Checklist
>
> We are interested in what you have in mind here. EOWG has been working on
> defining enhancements to How to Meet WCAG 2.0: A customizable quick
> reference... <http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/**quickref/<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/>>
> (some of which are collected at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/**
> changelogs/cl-wcag2-checklist.**html<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wcag2-checklist.html>)
>
> It would be good to coordinate on theses related items.
>
> 11. Appendix F: Comparison of UAAG 1.0 guidelines to UAAG 2.0
>
> Please consider making this an external document, not an appendix to the
> main TR doc. Note http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/**from10/comparison/<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/from10/comparison/>
>
> 12. Consistency, typos, copyediting.
>
> Most of the guidelines are consistent in tone (e.g., "Provide xyz..."),
> except: "The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion." (Note WCAG's
> similar guidelines is worded: "Make Web pages appear and operate in
> predictable ways.")
>
> Most of the Guidelines start with the word "Guideline", such as "Guideline
> 1.1 Ensure that non-Web-based functionality is accessible." "Guideline" is
> missing from "5.4 The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion."
>
> Most of the success criteria have a colon after the "handle", such as
> "1.3.1 Accessibility Features: Implement and cite in the conformance
> claim...". A colon is missing from a few of them: "3.1.1 Identify Presence
> of Alternative Content The user...", "4.5.1 Change Preference Settings The
> user...", and "5.3.6 Appropriate Language If characteristics..."; and
> several have periods instead of colons, including 4.5.6, 4.5.7, 4.9.7,
> 4.9.8, 4.9.10, and 4.9.11.
>
> Some of the colons are included in <strong>, and others are not. For
> example:
> <strong class="handle">4.6.4 Alert on No Match: </strong>The...
> <strong class="handle">4.7.5 Direct activation</strong>: direct...
>
> Some are missing a space after the colon. For example: "4.5.4 Portable
> Preference Settings:The user..."
>
> After the colon should be a capital letter; some are not, such as "4.7.5
> Direct activation: direct..."
>
> Capitalization of the "handles" is inconsistent. Most are
> title/headline-style capitalization (e.g., "Global Volume"), however some
> are not, such as "4.9.10 Scale and position alternative media tracks.",
> "5.4.1 Control default focus", and "5.4.2 Unpredictable focus".
>
> Consider avoiding "e.g.," and always writing out "for example".
>
> Duplication of "(Level A)" in the handle and then at the end seems like an
> error in SC such as "1.1.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level A):
> Non-Web-based user agent... success criteria. (Level A)" (because the Level
> is only at the end for most SC)
> Consider formatting the first one differently, such as: "1.1.1
> Non-Web-Based Accessible at Level A: Non-Web-based user agent... success
> criteria. (Level A)"
>
> Most lists under SC are spaced nicely right under the sentence that
> introduces them; however, some are not, such as:
> "3.1.3 Browse and Render: The user can browse the alternatives, switch
> between them, and render them according to the following (Level A):
> [too much space]
> - synchronized alternatives...
> "
>
> Consider getting a skilled technical editor to suggest specific ways to
> simplify the language, for example:
> * "Three of the principles are congruent to..." -> "Three of the
> principles are the same as..." or "Three of the principles are similar
> to..."
> * "The user agent must behave in a predictable fashion." -> "Make the user
> agent behave in predictable ways." (note earlier comment about consistent
> tone)
>
> [/end comments]
>
> Important notes:
>
> * Many in EOWG did not have the chance to review this draft. Please let us
> know when there is an updated Editors' Draft that we can review before Last
> Call.
>
> * Most of the issues above were discussed in one EOWG teleconference, and
> a few added as these were being typed up. They do not necessarily represent
> consensus among all of EOWG.
>
> Regards,
>
> ~Shawn Henry, EOWG Chair
> for EOWG <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/**EOWG-members.html<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/EOWG-members.html>
> >
>
> p.s. Thanks to Sylvie Duchateau for many of these comments.
>
>
>
> -----
> Shawn Lawton Henry
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
> phone: +1.617.395.7664
> about: http://www.w3.org/People/**Shawn/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964