- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:36:56 -0400
- To: <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00c601c35c6b$3e7e5a70$9601a8c0@deque.local>
Technical 1. Consider inserting a section on development process: Choice of technology and impact on accessibility. This section should talk about "widely available", time lag before assistive tech adopts the technology,availability of AT in natural language of site, backword compatibility, etc. This section may be placed before the guidelines and checkpoints are listed. 2. Rationale of what constitutes core and extended like WCAG 1.0 has a structure of P1, P2, P3. Need to explain why some are core and some are extended, like Core checkpoints : if not complied with, one or more user groups may find it impossible to access content Extended: these enhance (usability) or facilitate navigation and provide more efficient access to content 3. Under Required success factors for 2.3: There is a tool that can identify flicker. RAMP from Deque Systems (www.deque.com) is the only automated tool that can identify unacceptable flicker rate (2 to 55 Hz as per Sec 508) and can do the 3-49 Hz now proposed. 4. Checkpoint 2.4: [EXTENDED] Structure and/or alternate navigation mechanisms have been added to facilitate orientation and movement in content. [was 3.1 and 3.2] Comment: i. I believe that the minimum limit of 50000 word per doc of 50 page site is not needed. Headings for text sections or groups of links etc reveal structure and organization of content. Absence of these struuctural markups make it inefficient to navigate a page with even less than 10k words. So wherever a hierarchy can be used to reasonably structure the page content, this checkpoint is applicable. The author should use judgment to do so. I am a screen reader user and on numerous sites sensed the need for structural markup. ii. While there is mention of headings and titles for text sections, I note the absence of linksthat can be grouped and given headings. Like product links, links for services offered, links for different contacts etc. Are markup for headings used to group links outside the scope of this checkpoint? 4. Checkpoint 4.2: Technologies that are relied upon by the content are declared and widely available.[was 5.2] The "are widely available" part should be dropped. That will influence the decision to adopt a particular technology and is not under content developer's control after the decision is made to go with a technology. Consequently references to "widely available" in definitions and elsewhere may be deleted. 5. Checkpoint4.3: Technologies used for presentation and user interface support accessibility or alternate versions of the content are provided that do support accessibility.[was 5.3 and 5.4] Reword as: "Alternate versions of the content that support accessibility are provided where technologies used for presentation and user interface [do not support accessibility ] or [present barriers to accessibility] * * * Thanks, Sailesh Panchang Senior Accessibility Engineer Deque Systems Inc 11180 Sunrise Valley Drive, 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191 Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105 Fax: 703-225-0387 E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com * Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:31:52 UTC