- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 11:28:46 -0700
- To: public-atag2-comments@w3.org
* Comment 1: See Guideline A.1.2. "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow … requirements [which] are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0 … success criteria. " We believe that what it means for a non-web-based authoring tool to be functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.0 is undefined. This is very important, but it is a large task and may not be a WAI problem to solve. Could/should desktop accessibility standards like ANSI/HFES 200 Part 2 / ISO 9241-171 be used instead? e.g. "Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility standards for desktop software. The following are some example software accessibility standards: ISO, Section 508 1194.21." We don't think that multiple levels are necessary. (A122, A123). These standards don't necessarily have comparable levels. * Comment 2 (editorial): The introduction says "This section is informative, except where noted." This seems confusing. It might be better to label the information and normative subsections as such. * Comment 3: Several Success Criteria have clarifying examples “(e.g., …)” in their body. These should be avoided. They can be converted to notes or moved to the understanding document. (FWIW, WCAG does have some normative use of “e.g.”, mostly in definitions, but never in SC.) * Comment 4: Some guidelines end with “Applicability Notes”. The formating and location makes it less than obvious that these apply to all Success Criteria within a Guideline. Suggest moving these before Success Criteria (within a Guideline grouping), or repeating for each Success Criteria. The Success Criteria should stand on their own, and Success Criteria can be anticipated to be extracted from Guideline context, so this these Applicability Notes are problematic as used. * Comment 5 Guideline B.2.2. Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. The last “Applicability Notes” for this Guideline includes a rather large exception for third-part content. We recommend handling this with a Statement of Partial Conformance (like WCAG). Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 18:29:20 UTC