- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:42:43 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
WCAG 2.0 Working Draft 24 June 2003 The W3C has posted a request for reviews of the current draft of the updated version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Version 2.0 is intended to improve on WCAG 1.0 as well as going beyond simply being a revision to being a rewrite, as I understand things. I promised Wendy Chisholm I'd take a look, so here's my take on WCAG 2.0. Comments are in no particular order; they're simply what popped into my head when reading through the draft. I will attempt to identify the key points with <strong> emphasis; these comments are numbered for reference. A permanent URL for this post is http://www.maccessibility.com/archive/000764.php A note on approach: Although I am very familiar with WCAG 1.0, I am not referring to it while reviewing this draft, and in fact, I am trying to forget that I know it at all. For many people -- from 2004 to 2009, at least -- this will be their first introduction to these concepts, and the document needs to stand alone as a complete reference. 1. Organizational: There is a lot of "legalese" at the beginning, and that might be a good place for "skip to table of contents" links. 2. Abstract: The final version of the abstract should not describe this document primarily in terms of WCAG 1.0 -- as per my comment on "approach" above. The existence of 1.0 can be mentioned, but the abstract should stand alone. 3. Terminology: "Normative" and "non-normative" are used a lot but are not defined in this spec. The specific use of "normative" should be noted under "how to read this document". 4. Audience: I want a better definition of the audience. For a writing project of this kind of scope, audiences must be defined clearly and explicitly, as well as how those audiences will use this document. 5. Priorities and Techniques: Hopefully the final version will not reference WCAG 1.0 so much. 6. Suggestion: A "conversion document" between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 would be helpful. 7. Conformance: This section uses terms before defining them, such as "Required Success Criteria" and "Best Practice." 8. Suggestion: I would really like to see a graphical representation of the concepts for both the document structure as well as the conformance criteria. Without a visual representation, it is very hard to understand what's what. 9. Conformance: The terminology Core, Core+ and Extended are not clear terms. I am concerned that these specific terms, while they have meaning to the working group, will be opaque to the readers of the document. 10. Core+ Questions: How should conformance claims state which Extended Checkpoints are met? in metadata? in a site accessibility statement? some other method? Metadata, accessibility statement, and (ugh) graphic are all acceptable and should be supported; furthermore, this should be an open list not a closed list. How should conformance claims state how many Extended Checkpoints are met? in metadata? with core+n (n=number of Extended checkpoints)? in a site accessibility statement? some other method? In the same way as above, but not literally "core + N". If Core+ is claimed, should we require a statement about which Extended checkpoints are met? Definitely yes. Is there a separate logo for each level: core, core+, and extended? If so,what does the logo point to? Does it have to point to anything? Comparisons of Core+ conformance claims can not be made unless detailed information is provided about the Extended checkpoints that are met. Yes. Was this a question? Should detailed conformance information be provided in metadata? There is doubt that it will be kept up to date, especially if the site becomesless accessible over time. Also, we may be unable to require metadata since some companies have indicated that the legal and ISO 9000 ramifications would prevent them from posting metadata describing the exact conformance. Any way to indicate conformance can become out of date. If companies don't wish to make claims using one or more of the methods described by this document, they don't have to. This should not be a barrier for providing metadata schema for conformance claims. If it were possible to claim "Core+n" where "n" denotes the number of Extended Checkpoints that are met, some developers report that they would be encouraged to meet more Extended Checkpoints and increase the number they can report. However, people are likely to compare the number and these comparisons could be misleading. For example, a site that claims "Core+2" could be more accessible than a site that claims "Core+3" depending on which checkpoints are met. Heh. Let's call it Extended Minus Four, etc. 11. Scope of conformance claim: For purposes of metadata claims, scope should be identified via URI identification whenever possible, just because that's how the Web tends to function. 12. Overview of Design Principles: The four principles -- Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust -- are a great example of a place where images can be used to reinforce important points. An iconic representation of each of these concepts would help a lot. 13. User Needs: The statements "cannot hear", "cannot see", etc. have a tendency to reinforce the notion that all visually impaired people can't see at all, all deaf people can't hear at all, etc. Present these instead as user preferences based on what works best for each user, rather than as black-and-white disabilities. Remember that this document may be some Web developers' first exposure, at all, to the use of the Web by people with disabilities. Example: + Someone who cannot see well may want to hear information which is usually presented visually. 14. Guideline organization: Guideline one needs some introductory material explaining what is meant by "perceivable". 15. Clear and simple language: I tried mentally diagramming the sentence that comprises checkpoint 1.1 and it wasn't easy. I think this checkpoint has been overworked and needs to be stated simply and clearly. Note that this particular way of phrasing the checkpoint text makes it really impersonal. Compare to: + If you use content which is not simply textual, include a text equivalent for the parts of that non-text content which can be expressed in words. The text equivalent should convey the same function or meaning as the non-text content. This is an extreme example -- from one style ("W3C clinical" to "Kynn chatty") -- but it is meant to illustrate how a checkpoint can be rewritten to be understandable. 16. Markup point for 1.1: Suggest using <em> instead of <strong> on the words "can" and "can not" in the success criteria. 17. Checkpoint 1.1 "informative" material: Again, "informative" is used without definition (how does it differ from "non-normative"??). 18. Checkpoint 1.1 examples: Since this checkpoint is both basic and vastly complex, some definitive examples of when and where and how to use text equivalents should be here, not just relegated to the techniques. 19. Checkpoint 1.2 editorial note: This is a big headache. Ugh! No good answer here. 20. Checkpoint 1.3: I don't understand the [information/substance] phrasing. Are you asking which one is better? 21. Checkpoint 1.3: Because this seems so open-ended -- as with 1.1 -- I would want know what exactly this checkpoint requires me to do. For example, there are some tags which are rarely used in HTML 4.01 by anyone -- are those required if they convey structural information? Does this checkpoint ban the use of <b>? Help me understand it, without going into techniques -- ideally, someone (like me) who understands HTML 4.01 should be able to "derive" the techniques document from reading the guidelines. I don't get it, though. 22. Checkpoint 1.4 example: In example 2 (where is example 1?) it talks about "a page title" -- well, you can't use the <acronym> element within the <title> element! So the page title wouldn't have anything to indicate what the string "W3C" is supposed to be. Furthermore, the acronym element does not indicate pronunciation -- that is a function of aural CSS, if anything. This example is misleading. 23. Checkpoint 1.5 phrasing: What do you mean by "more people"? This is amazingly vague phrasing, and thus problematic. 24. Checkpoint 1.6: This is assuming that there is such thing as "foreground content" and "background content" -- does this model make sense, though? Is it generally applicable? 25. Checkpoint 2.1: When you say "at a minimum" I wonder what that minimum is. If something has multiple functions, are they all required to work, or is there some minimum defined? Does the concept of "minimum" as applied here really play an important role? 26. Checkpoint 2.1 editorial: Be careful how you write that up -- if something is "less than infinite tabbing" is it still acceptable? By what criteria can a Web developer judge if there are enough, or too many, tab keypresses to access functionality? 27. Checkpoint 2.2: By granting an exception for "competitive or realtime events" you are making a global value judgment which says "it's okay to be inaccessible if you have certain goals in mind." This is a bad idea, because the "loophole" in this checkpoint essentially says, "...so it's accessible." Guess what: a competition is still inaccessible if it is time-based. The purpose of this document is to define if a practice is accessible or inaccessible. Games don't magically become accessible by virtue of being games. Inaccessible coding should be labeled inaccessible if it is, indeed, inaccessible. There should be no loopholes. Someone who requires six times as much time to do something doesn't magically speed up just because it's a competition -- the competition is still inaccessible to that person, and should be stated as such. 28. Checkpoint 2.3: An explanation of "Hz" would be helpful. Not all Web developers would know what this means. 29. Checkpoint 2.3 Editorial Note: Okay, there's no tool to check for this. Question: Are there documented examples of anyone with photosensitive epilepsy ever getting clobbered by a Web page? If so, can you please point me to them, preferably from a reputable source (such as a medical journal) rather than just hearsay? 30. Checkpoint 2.4 phrasing: Again, a very ugly sentence diagram. Huh? 31. Checkpoint 2.4 editorial note: Also, the concept of Web application further weakens the page/site divide. 32. Checkpoint 3.1 best practice: It should also be possible for other data sent with the document, such as HTTP headers, to identify the primary language of the document. 33. Checkpoint 3.2 best practice: What's a cascading dictionary? Which unabridged dictionary is one required to use? Are there different ones for en-us, en-uk, en-ca, and en-au? 34. Checkpoint 3.3: Is this written in English? 35. Checkpoint 3.3 best practice: Will this be applied to WCAG 2.0? 36. Checkpoint 3.3 definitions: ASCII art is text. 37. Checkpoint 3.3 "Note": "Designers need to be cautious in deciding when to use illustrations " -- this reads as if it is discouraging the use of illustrations. Please don't discourage the use of illustrations. Phrasing of this sort will be misinterpreted -- look at how many media articles have reported that you shouldn't use color. 38. Checkpoint 3.4 phrasing: Whaaaaat? I don't understand what this checkpoint is trying to say to me. 39. Checkpoint 4.2: Is this checkpoint saying use JavaScript as long as you say you're using JavaScript? Or does it mean something else? 40. Checkpoint 4.2 best practice: Are two supporting implementations sufficient? I can think of things which are supported on Mozilla and Safari, but not in Internet Explorer. IE is used by the majority of people with or without disabilities. Can you claim accessibility if 95% of your audience is unable to access? 41. Checkpoint 4.2 definitions editorial note: I'm not sure I understand the "low cost" requirement. Can you define low cost? 42. Checkpoint 4.3 phrasing: Many of these sentences seem to be written as mathematical equations and could use some sort of grouping symbols around them. :p I get lost in this one's structure, too. Clear and simple language, please! 43. Checkpoint 4.3 editorial note: I think that process is important and should be discussed in another W3C document. 44. Appendix A Glossary: Isn't there a WAI-wide glossary in the works? 45. Content definition: This is probably the worst definition of content I've seen for a long time. :) 46. Mechanisms That Cause Extreme Changes in Context definition: The term itself is problematic, especially the overused word "extreme." "Mechanisms," of course, sounds like some sort of hardware function. So maybe this refers to an ejector seat. Can we get a better phrase? 47. Structure definition: This is as bad as the content definition. Hope this is helpful. If you want to do your own review, look over the draft and send your comments to the working group. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Shock & Awe Blog http://shock-awe.info Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://inlandantiempire.org
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2003 01:42:52 UTC