W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2014

Fwd: Comments on UAAG 7 November 2013 Drafts

From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:19:08 -0500
Message-ID: <52EFB36C.3030203@w3.org>
To: User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
More comments from members from EO (not approved by the whole group).



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Comments on UAAG 7 November 2013 Drafts
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:33:00 +0000
Resent-From: public-uaag2-comments@w3.org
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:32:51 -0600
From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
To: public-uaag2-comments@w3.org
CC: EOWG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>,  Sylvie Duchateau 
<sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr>

Dear UAAG WG,

Below are comments from Sylvie Duchateau, Shawn Henry, Andrew Arch, and 
Sharron Rush.
Note: These comments are from individuals and have not been reviewed by 
all EOWG participants.

UAAG & Implementing UAAG:

* Change: "The "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (UAAG 2.0) is 
part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web 
Accessibility Initiative (WAI)." To: "For an introduction to UAAG, see 
the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag">User Agent Accessibility 
Guidelines (UAAG) Overview.</a>" or "UAAG is introduced in the <a 
href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag">User Agent Accessibility 
Guidelines (UAAG) Overview.</a>" or such -- and include this sentence in 
the both the Abstract and the Introduction of both UAAG and Implementing 
UAAG.

* Abstracts: As a general rule, the Abstract of a document should have a 
short summary of the main point(s) of the document, and as such, any 
information that is in the Abstract should be in the main document. Both 
UAAG and Implementing UAAG have info in the Abstract that is not 
elsewhere. Currently much of the Abstracts seems more like Background 
and Introduction material, and there is duplication between the two 
documents. Please consider moving much of the information from both 
Abstracts into a section of Implementing, and pointing to that from the 
UAAG intro (based on previous decision to put most of the non-normative 
info in Implementing so that you can edit it later if warranted). (We 
hope that the abstract is being rewritten in response to our December 
2013 comments and therefore we are not commenting more specifically at 
this time.)

* The tables of contents only have 'Guideline N' as the link. Suggest 
also linking the guideline shortname because for many readers the 
numbers do not mean anything and they need the shortname to know the 
guideline.

Implementing UAAG – Overall:

* Examples of users: In most cases, the disability of the user is 
specified; however in some it is not, for example, Binh in success 
criterion 1.3.1 and Maximilian in 1.1.6. Without this, it may not be 
clear why it is necessary to implement the success criterion for the 
specified user. Suggestion: include disability for all examples.

* Typos: "webpage" instead of "web page". "timeline" vs. "time line"?

Abstract (Implementing):

* Second paragraph ("This document provides explanation of the intent of 
UAAG 2.0 success criteria, examples of implementation of the guidelines, 
best practice recommendations and additional resources for the 
guideline.") is not clear. Why "success criteria" first, then 
"guidelines" (plural), then "guideline" (singular)? Is this referring to 
the Guidelines as a document, or the individual success criteria and 
guidelines, or other? Does this document have anything at the guideline 
level or is it all at the SC level? If the latter – and based on above 
suggestion to address issues in the Abstract, maybe Abstract becomes:
[[
This document provides supporting information for User Agent 
Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0, a standard for accessible "user 
agents" (browsers, media players, and applications that retrieve and 
render Web content). It provides information on the scope of UAAG, 
conformance with UAAG, relationship of UAAG with other accessibility 
guidelines, and other general guidance. It explains the intent of each 
UAAG success criterion, provides examples of how people with 
disabilities use implementations of the success criterion, and lists 
related resources.

For an introduction to UAAG, see the <a 
href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag">User Agent Accessibility 
Guidelines (UAAG) Overview</a>.
]]
(Wording also avoids "best practice recommendations" because it can be a 
problem in the legal area, according to Gregg V.)

Examples of Success Criterion 1.8.2:

* Example 2 is not clear. Why and how George should scroll? ("George 
uses a screen reader. He is showing a sighted colleague how to complete 
a registration form that's contained within a viewport. The form exceeds 
the vertical bounds of the viewport, requiring George to scroll 
vertically to view the complete form content. When George completes each 
form entry, if the next form is not already visible in the viewport, it 
scrolls into view.")

Examples of Success Criterion 2.3.4:

* In first example, there are some strange sign that I cannot identify, 
may be it makes sense graphically, but not in braille, and nothing is 
pronounced by the speech synthesizer. Here is what I can read: "notices 
that the menu item has a "⌘" label (e.g. "Copy ⌘+C")." Can you change 
the example to not use the sign? If not, please make it clear to screen 
reader users.

Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.1:

* The 4th example on Sam is not clear. I am not sure that many blind 
users disable images in their browsers as images do not need to be 
disabled to hear their alt attribute spoken by screen readers. Please 
think about how realistic this example is.  ("Sam is a screen reader 
user. He has images off and the alternative content for images  is 
revealed. He wants to send the flow chart image on the page to a 
collegue. Sam searches for the word "flowchart" that he heard spoken as 
part of the 'alt' text for the image. He then uses the context menu to 
select the address of the image and sends it to a colleague. ") (Also 
typo: "collegue" -> "colleague".)

Examples of Success Criterion 2.5.2:

* I don't understand the meaning of 4th example that talks about 
blindness, speech command and heading navigation. Please explanation 
this more clearly. ("Armand is blind. When he uses the speech input to 
locate a web page on his smartphone, Armand navigates from heading to 
heading using touch commands.")

* Copyedit: In third example on Celia, it would be useful to add a comma 
after "document": "When looking for any particular section of the 
document she finds it easier to scan through headings".

---

These are in addition to comments submitted in December 2013 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-uaag2-comments/2014Jan/0006.html>.

Regards,
~Shawn



-----
Shawn Lawton Henry
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
e-mail: shawn@w3.org
phone: +1.617.395.7664
about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 15:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:45 UTC