- From: Meeds, Sherman A. <sameeds@DOC1.WA.GOV>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:01:20 -0700
- To: "'public-comments-wcag20@w3.org'" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
- Cc: "Mikler, Donald J. Jr." <djmikler@DOC1.WA.GOV>, "Piper, Paul (DIS)" <PaulP@DIS.WA.GOV>
Conformance Claims: There is an advantage to having multi-level of conformance possible, i.e. Core, Core+, and Extended. There are two issues involved: * Where to make the claim on the site: Because there are two audiences involved, the claim should be made in two places; in a site accessibility statement that the viewer can see and using metadata so automated tools can establish the level of conformance. Whether or not the information would be kept up to date is irrelevant since any claim made can become outdated. It is still the responsibility of the site manager to maintain accurate data for conformance as in anything else. * How to grade the Core+ category: The only method that appears to have merit is the Core+N method. The number of items tends to mean little since the easiest will probably be done first. However, assuming that is true means sites could be compared in a generally way based on the amount. Another way that might be possible is to establish sub-categories that equate to types of accessibility. In that manner, the Core could be extended in jumps where a site complies completely with a subcategory that the viewer can identify the value of. Exclusions from claims must be allowed for certain situations, especially maintaining material copyright by outside parties. (Material copyright by the company owning the site should be established to meet the conformance claim.) However, the only type of exclusion should come from material not under the control of the site manager. Material the site manager is presenting should not be excluded. It is only outside material that can be. Usually, this type of material can and should be kept separate, and clearly identified as outside material. The example given, "All pages and applications on this site meet the Core checkpoints of WCAG 2.0 except the Web cam at http: // example.org / webcam /." (1.2) is a good one. The Additional Items mentioned in the editorial note dated 22 May 2003 under 1.5 should be moved to techniques as suggested. The items does detail techniques for handling material. 1.6 Contrast: The issue of contrast is complex and there is no easy answer. However, in my experience, a web page that has proper contrast can also be printed on a standard laser printer without special graphics dithering turned on and still show all the material in usable form. 2.3 Screen Flicker: The bottom line about screen flicker is that it is individual to the person. There is still the possibility that screen flicker rates having passed requirements could affect individuals prone to seizures. However, if a page is designed to flicker, individuals must be told before they access the page using normal menuing functions. My feeling is that pages should not be designed to flicker at all, and that changing content should always be shown with clearly perceived movement, such as a blinking cursor. Content that changes faster than can be clearly perceived by the eye should not be allowed, such as when subliminal stimulative messages are presented. 3.2 Links for Term Definitions: You cannot have a defined goal of making material accessible and understandable if some users will not be familiar with all of the terms and acronyms, and you can't assume all users are familiar with terms outside of normal use. Therefore, all terms not found in everyday use and all acronyms should be explained in a definitions page of some sort. A good definition of what needs to be listed (beyond all acronyms) would include those terms peculiar to the site. However, links to this page should not be necessary. If a person knows the page is there, they can access it when they need to. Maintaining these links would be a large burden for site managers. in 4.1, Items 2 and 3 are not only superfluous, they are ambiguous. I would take them out. Item 4.2 does provide a clear definition in my understanding. What's more, it would establish important organizational elements that might not be done otherwise. I would keep it. 4.3 requires the technology chosen in a web site conform to accessibility requirements, and if not, that alternative technology be available side-by-side with the main site material. An example would be using a Flash introductory screen with a link to non-flash presentation. This means the Flash presentation is important for the web site content as defined in the business needs, but that an alternative page(s) would be available for those not having or not wanting to use Flash. I feel 4.3 is very important to ensure accessibility under certain circumstances and the process is not the factor being considered here.
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 13:11:21 UTC