W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2004

My technical review of WCAG 2.0

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:02:46 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Thanks for inviting public comments. I appreciate this opportunity to
express my thanks for your hard work.

The following suggestions are made with no expectation of response;
take them for what they are worth.  Last time Wendy felt she needed
to identify the resolution of each item.

Here are my editorial conventions:
Locator:  by section, whose name I show following such a separator
    Pd   principal d
    pn:   paragraph n therein
    Gadd to glossaryG
    B2 bullet 2B
    Ox ordered list item x
GLn Guideline nGL
GEn Guideline Example nGE
     Gfull range of disabilitiesG
     Guser agentG  referred to 4 places
Overview of Design Principals
     2. GoperableG    some amplification is in following p2
User Needs
     B2 ,,,will want to hear, +possibly by text-to-speech synthesis,+ or feel …

P1 Od GMultimediaG    I believe the breadt of Multimedia needs to be 
GL1.3 Level 1 Success Criteria
O4. Avoid blinking or flashing content O  [you discuss this later, but why 
isn’t it a criteria?]
Level 2 Success Criteria
O2. +Alternatively provide a presentation without the background, such as 
the frequently found “print” option.+

GE1.4 Example 1 … why leave implicit “no letters are light on dark? GE

GL1.5 (audio contrast)  Level 3 success Criteria for Guideline 
1.5  Note:  A 20 db difference in sound level.
? I expect that such background sound that meets this requirement will be 
approximately four times
( 4x) quieter than the foreground audio content – will be hard to 
verify--particularly when there are competing sounds.

P2: Interface elements in the content must be GoperableG.


Level 1 Success Criteria …All functionality of the content, “where the 
content or its outcome” ?can be described in a sentence,?
Is operable through a keyboard or keyboard interface.  I have no idea what 
“described in a sentence” means here!

It needn’t be, as written, if  it can’t be describe in a sentence!

Level 3 Success Criteria for guideline 2.1
+Why omit the alternative +voice command+?
Who Benefits from G2.1
B2 …(which simulates keystrokes +or commands+)
Examples of Guideline 2.1
Example 1  …”focus-in, focus-out”  ?what?  These need to be explained: GfocusG
GL2.2 ..
Level 1 success criteria

P2 Interface elements in the content must be GoperableG

GL 2.1 Level3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.1
Another alternative for functionality is +voice command.+ which need not be 
a keyboard equivalent.
Who benefits from Guideline 2.1

Speech input (which simulates keystrokes +or commands+

GE 2.1  Gfocus-in, focus-outG
Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2

B2 … over a wide range which is at least ten times the length of the 
default setting ?presumes there is such?
? some may wish it to be faster, others slower. Level 2 Success Criteria 
for Guideline 2.2

User is allowed to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds. 
?Why not allow total turn-off of blink –
Photo-sensitive epilepsy.
Level 3 success Criteria for Guideline 2.2  Editorial Note  … Real time 
events – Ask/notify the user on real-time events,
How they should be presented.
Who Benefits from Guideline 2.2

B2  … when read out of order +by+ an assistive technology …

Example of Guideline 2.2
B2 The content provides an option that allows the user to turn off the 
blinking +or never allow it.+
?The audio channel might be used as an alternative to blinking text?

GL2.3 Content that violates General Flash Threshhold or Red Flash 
Threshhold  -- These are new concepts,
Described below.  [?should they rather be in the Glossary as well?]

Editorial Note:  A free tool … available by the second quarter of 2004 …?is it?

I find the above far too technical, and not obviously related to
Who Benefits from Guideline 2.3+?+
GL2.4  ?Why isn’t this the place to allow text search?
Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4
O1 c.  You mean alternative not alternate – which means every other.
Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4
O3  Logical tab order may not be testable – but if there is tab index on 
links is there, author has judged what it should be, so needn’t question it.
5.  Are there any others?

d. lists
e. tables, with navigable data and also layout tables
GL 2.5 level 2 Success Criteria … in an accessible forma that meets +the 
other+ ____
Level 1 success Criteria).
Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5  …there are less than 75 of them 
?Don’t you mean 5 +/- 2
GL 3.1
Level 2 Success Criteria

The meanings and pronunciations of all words [in the content ?This is a 
major testing burden? Cam be programmatically located.

Note This does not include use of foreign words in text where such usage is 
a standard extension o the language. ?Canadian bilingual injections may 
need to be specially noted.
Level 3 Success Criteria
Instructions and operable content  ?operable content?
Need different bullet form under Being clear where the document …
B5 Use default settings (and Xthe ease in re-establishing themX) +and an 
easy method to establish and change them+
Editorial Note … text-only variants …  I agree the choice should be reinstated.
Who benefits from Guideline 3.1  b1  a speech synthesizer ?few are 
B3 Defining key terms and specialized +(technical)+ language
Examples of Guideline 3.1
Example 4.   replace XconcreteX by +explicit+ 2 places
Example 6  at end ?(there is implicitly the choice by the user how to 
access the raw data – but how?.)
Guideline 3.2  “page to page”
Editorial note.  “page”   might be “logical sequence, as if in page order.”
Level 2 success Criteria for Guideline 3.2  Repeated components “page to 
page” should be skippable, to get to the meat of the content.
Who benefits from Guideline 3.2
B2 sub bullet 1   Should there be a keyboard action for a back button?
P4 Content must be robust enough to work work with current and future 
technologies  ?But how can we have such foresight?
Who benefits from Guideline 4.2
Last bullet  typo “Individuals who can not …”   … equipment XasX +so+ often.

?User action?
?Informative?  contrast with Normative
Marked in way that the user can access prior to its appearance

?replace “provocative” by “contentious”.
Natural Language
There is no pretense that signed language synthesis is needed.
Programmatic user interface component  ?what?
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 13:05:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:36 UTC