Re: WCAG and MWBP comments

Hi Shawn,

I will have a look and address Andi's comments. I will let you know  
when I complete the changes.

Regards,
Yeliz.
On 20 May 2009, at 23:03, Shawn Henry wrote:

> Hi Alan & Yeliz,
>
> Please see the comments below. Note that Andi commented on both the  
> TR/technical document that Alan is editing and the "Shared  
> Experiences" document that Yeliz most recently edited.
>
> Can you each take a look at these and make edits in your documents  
> as appropriate. Note that some comments might trigger edits needed  
> in another page.
>
> Per Andi's e-mail, fee free to contact her if you need clarification.
>
> Also, could you let me know when you will be able to get to these  
> edits? We have no particular deadline, except that we're eager to  
> finish up the technical document and get it published.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Shawn
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	WCAG and MWBP comments
> Date: 	Tue, 19 May 2009 17:08:53 -0500
> From: 	Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
>
> Shawn,
>
> I reviewed the Editor's draft of the Relationship between MWBP and  
> WCAG.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/ 
> drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20090428/
>
> And I did it rather hurriedly so if something doesn't make sense,  
> please feel free to follow up.
>
> There's not much in this document so I assume you want feedback on  
> the substantive pages linked to from this document. I focused on  
> the WCAG 2.0 mappings more than the WCAG 1.0 mappings.
>
> There are two links to Shared experiences (http://www.w3.org/WAI/ 
> mobile/experiences.html) but then a link to a "table of barriers  
> common ..." (http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new-format).  
> The latter page links to another page which looks like a  
> replacement to the shared experiences page? I only reviewed the  
> experiences-new-table.
>
> [Note from Shawn: Alan, please change:
> <li>Use the <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new- 
> format">table of barriers common to mobile device users and people  
> with disabilities</a> for an overview of the barriers and solutions  
> shared by WCAG 2.0 and MWBP.
> TO:
> <li>Use <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences">Shared  
> Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device Users and People  
> with Disabilities</a> (which is also available in a <a href="http:// 
> www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-table">table format</a>) for an  
> overview of the barriers and solutions shared by WCAG 2.0 and MWBP.
> ]
>
> Here are my comments:
>
> [*** Yeliz's document ***]
>
> Table of Shared Web Experiences: Barriers Common to Mobile Device  
> Users and People with Disabilities [Draft, 14 October 2008]http:// 
> www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences-new-table
>
> [Note from Shawn: It was our fault she reviewed the wrong version.  
> I've now added a note to that page pointing to the published  
> version. Anyway, I think the content is the same so her comments  
> probably still apply.]
>
> Perceivable
>
> * Multimedia with no captions - references WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1.  
> Should reference 1.2.2, 1.2.4, and 1.2.8.
>
> * Audio-only prompts (beeps) for important information (warnings,  
> errors) - references WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1. Should reference 1.2.1.
>
> * Embedded non-text objects (images, sound, video) with no text  
> alternative - typo - "losses information" should be "loses  
> information"
>
> * "Embedded non-text objects (images, sound, video) with no text  
> alternative" & "Important information in non-text content (images,  
> multimedia, CSS effects)" seem like the same use case. Recommend  
> combining. Also, the Web context gets into the area of  
> accessibility-supported Web technologies (Information not available  
> to user whose browser, assistive technology, other user agent  
> doesn't support object).
>
> * Free-text entry (for example, alphabetical characters allowed in  
> numeric fields) - references WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.4 (include  
> place-holding characters in text areas) and WCAG 2.0 SC 1.1.1 (non- 
> text content). The issue being described here is a user with a  
> mobility impairment who has trouble entering information or a  
> mobile device users who must use a small keypad. WCAG 1.0 10.4 (pri  
> 3) is a work-around for user agents who don't support empty  
> controls well. And WCAG 2.0 1.1.1 is not relevant at all because  
> text areas are not "non-text content". WCAG 2.0 does have some SC  
> around errors in forms but I don't think they are related to the  
> MWBPs for this use case (MINIMIZE KEYSTROKES, PROVIDE DEFAULTS,  
> DEFAULT INPUT MODE). I recommend that this use case be deleted from  
> the table.
>
> * Content formatted using tables or CSS, and reading order not  
> correct when linearized (for example when CSS or tables not  
> rendered) - the experience for this use case is "User cannot access  
> the correct ordering of the information on a page because the  
> content is garbled." Recommend changing this to "User cannot  
> understand the content correctly when it's presented in a linear  
> order."
>
> Operable
>
> * Scripting required to operate or generate content - references  
> WCAG 2.0 keyboard SC 2.1.1 and 2.1.3. I don't think there is a  
> mapping to a WCAG 2.0 SC for this. Rather it maps to the concept of  
> relying on scripts as an accessibility supported Web technology.
>
> * Special plug-in required - same issue as scripting required.  
> Also, there is a typo in this line. It repeats the column header in  
> the Disability context column.
>
> * Non-descriptive link label - disability context sounds like blind  
> users can only read links out of context in a list. Suggest  
> changing to "User who is blind often accesses a list of links on a  
> page without the context around them."
>
> Understandable
>
> * Blinking, moving, scrolling, or auto-updating content -  
> references WCAG 2.0 SC 3.2.5. I think it should also reference  
> 2.2.2. In the disabilities context, there is also the distraction  
> issue.
>
>
> [*** Alan's document ***]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/ 
> drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20090428/wcag20-mwbp.html
>
> Nothing list
>
> * STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT bullet - I don't agree that this is covered  
> by 1.3.1. The MWBP requires that the page be usable with style  
> sheets disabled. In WCAG 2.0, you can rely on style sheets if you  
> consider it to be an accessibility supported Web technology. It is  
> possible to have all of the information and structure be  
> programmatically determined but the page would not be usable  
> without the style sheets. ARIA is one technology that depends  
> heavily on style sheets and ARIA sites will not be usable (by  
> sighted users) with the style sheets disabled.
>
> * STYLE_SHEETS_USE bullet - WCAG 2.0 allows, but does not  
> encourage, layout tables as long as they meet all of the other  
> criteria. If the MWBP requires the use of style sheets and not  
> layout tables, then 1.3.1 would not meet the MWBP criteria and more  
> would be required.
>
> Something
>
> * COLOR_CONTRAST link doesn't work - I think this should go in the  
> "Nothing" list. If you meet the WCAG 2.0 measurable criteria, that  
> should be good enough to meet the subjective MWBP criteria too.
>
> * CONTROL_LABELLING - I think that if you do the labeling portion  
> of 3.3.2 AND EITHER 1.3.1 OR 4.1.2, then you meet the MWBP and  
> there would be nothing else to do.
>
> * CONTROL_POSITIONING - I think this should say " 1.3.1 ... at  
> level A if the label element is used. The advisory (optional)  
> technique (“Positioning labels to maximize predictability of  
> relationships”) is also required.
>
> * NON_TEXT_ALTERNATIVES - confused as to why this is in both the  
> Nothing and the Something list.
>
> * OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT - I don't think the Keyboard SC help with this.  
> It may be a script that is managing the keyboard operation.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/ 
> drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20090428/mwbp-wcag20.html
>
> * I only briefly scanned this document but didn't see any glaring  
> problems.
>
> Andi
>

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 05:06:47 UTC