Re: Hewlett-Packard Web Accessibility Team Review of WCAG 2.0

Dear Melinda,

Thank you for your comments on the 30 June 2005 Working Draft of WCAG
2.0. A list of issues related to comments you have made is available at:

If you follow the above link, the issues will be displayed in a table
with links to each issue. If you prefer to see the contents of each
issue as a single report, please select the "Long Format" button at the 
end of the list of issues. If you have any questions about the issues 
list interface, please let us know.

Thank you for your patience while the WCAG WG responds to the variety
of comments we received on this last Working Draft.

All the best,


Ben Caldwell | <>
Trace Research and Development Center <>

Stelzer, Melinda wrote:
> Hello WCAG working group:
> Thanks for this opportunity to again comment on WCAG 2.0.  I was happy
> to see that many of my comments from last time had been addressed.  Here
> are my comments on the 30 June 2005 draft.
> I support the inclusion of HTML validity as priority 1.  I agree that
> HTML validation is too often ignored by page developers.  I do not agree
> with the statement that "it is too difficult to validate code".  If an
> HTML page is that difficult to correct, it ought to be rewritten!  Most
> pages only contain a few validation errors which could easily be fixed
> if the developer took the time to validate them.  Stating that some
> validation errors are ok is copping out -- delivering the message that
> conformance to HTML syntax criteria is not important.  If some of the
> syntax rules are not important, maybe we should change the syntax rules
> to include only what is important.
> 2 OR 3 LEVELS:
> Having two levels instead of three would simplify things for people who
> would otherwise be overwhelmed by the volume of the guidelines. Give
> people the most important considerations, and don't distract them with
> the lower priority ones.  
> As for removing the level 3 items, I would advocate keeping this
> knowledge somewhere that people can still see it if they are interested.
> I would not just throw it away.
> What about having another document in the document set, that contains
> what we currently know as the level 3 items, and calling it something
> else, like "more stuff you can do to be more accessible if you want"?
> I would advocate keeping the transcript requirement at level 1 and
> moving the caption requirement to level 2.  Often it is beyond
> budget/schedule/skillset/feasibility to provide captions, but a
> transcript is readily available.  It would be good to encourage people
> to satisfy level 1 rather than give up entirely.
> Likewise, I would move audio descriptions to level 2.
> Please provide examples of functionality that can be described in a
> sentence, and examples of functionality that can not be described in a
> sentence.  I.e.,  you state that this success criterion applies to
> functionality  "where the functionality or its outcome can be described
> in a sentence".  I don't understand why you include that clause.  Is
> there a reason for it? If so, show me examples of things that fall
> inside and things that fall outside of that spec.  If there is no reason
> for having that clause, (if such examples can not be provided) then
> please delete it.
> Please provide informative guidelines on how to satisfy the Level 1
> success criterion.  It's not clear to me how programs should determine
> navigational elements.  Should a program be able distinguish the
> navigational controls/menus on a page from just links that are embedded
> in the content?
> Same comment as for guideline 2.4 -- It's not clear how a change of
> context would be programmatically determined.
> This page
> Gives me an XML error and can not be displayed in IE.
> ------------------------------------
> Melinda Stelzer
> Program Manager
> HP Web Technical Standards
> 562-856-0408

Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 19:02:01 UTC