W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Irl-DeAN member comments

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:08:07 -0500
Message-ID: <43137937.2070602@trace.wisc.edu>
To: "Hugh O'Neill" <honeill@crc.ie>
CC: "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>

Dear Hugh,

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:
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/buglist.cgi?keywords=Hugh_O'Neill>

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

-- 
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>


Hugh O'Neill wrote:
> The following are comments by two members of the Irish Design for All e-Accessibility Network (Irl - DeAN), a network aimed at promoting the use of the principles of Design-for-All for e-accessibility. 
> 
> 
> 	1.	The guidelines are easy to understand, with the exception of the phrase "programmatically determined", that could be changed to "understood by software", or something less obscure.
> 
> 	2.	With regard to baselines, browsers should be encouraged to be standards compliant. There should be a minimum standard that they meet (e.g. css 2.0). Any technical experimentation should be additional to these basic standards. Without a real technical standard, accessibility becomes very difficult to achieve with different solutions required for different browsers.
> 
> 	3.	The standards need to be brought up to date with current technology to allow pages to be made valid. Egg the embed tag. They should be flexible enough to allow objects, but the objects themselves should also be designed to accessible standards. 
> 
> 	4.	a) For point 1.1 SC2, "functional non-text content" needs to be either rephrased or an example provided. At the moment it's unclear.
> 		b)  point 1.2 SC4, some of those reading the checklist will not be sure about what is accessible to assistive technology. Good backup guidelines are important.
> 		c) In 1.3, the words "programmatically determined" needs to be changed to something like "understood by software". For structures, you could say instead that the structure should convey a hierarchy of information.
> 		d) 1.4 L2 SC2 is difficult to follow
> 		e) 2.4 L2 SC1 "programmatically identified", may need to rephrase.
> 		f) 3.2 L2 SC3 General: Delivery Unit, Perceivable Unit all need real life examples to clarify what they mean. 
> 		g) "change of context" may also need further definition and examples. 
> 
> 	5. 	3 levels gives those who take it on something to aim for. To have a standard where nothing is achievable until everything is achievable will put people off trying. One idea may be to go for a "gold, sliver and bronze" medal approach to accessibility. Bronze would be achieving level 1, Gold achieving at level 3. This would also get across the idea of the desirability of good accessibility. 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh O'Neill
> Project Co-ordinator,
> Central Remedial Clinic,
> Vernon Avenue,
> Dublin 3,
> Ireland.
> 
> 
> Elaine McGlynn
> Support-EAM Project,
> Electronic Eng. Dept.,
> D.C.U.,
> Dublin 9,
> Ireland.
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Information in this e-mail (including attachment) is confidential. It is intended for receipt and consideration only by the intended recipient. If you are not an addressee or intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, publication or copying of information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. opinions expressed  in this email may be personal to the author and are not necessarily the opinions of the Central Remedial Clinic. If this email has been received in error we would be grateful if you could immediately notify us by email at helpdesk@crc.ie and thereafter delete this email from your system.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 21:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:05 UTC