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

Public Comment on WCAG 2.0 Draft

From: Richard D. Herring <rdherring5@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20051221173148.79772.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Cc: kg2pu@arrl.net

Dear Sirs/Madams:

Here are brief, almost cursory comments to the WCAG
2.0 draft. My intent is to make the proposed document
stronger and more understandable to a wider audience.
A worthy goal is that the WCAG 2.0 be understandable
"as-is", or with the assistance of only a brief
glossary. I appreciate the hard work of the volunteers
to make these efforts.

First General comments: I still find many terms within
WCAG 2.0 draft difficult to understand or
operationalize. This is true even relying upon the
brief glossary supplied. For instance, I sympathize
with terms like "specific sensory experience" and
"baseline". However, I do not think they are yet
sufficiently clearly defined by the text and brief
glossary.

I think presentation layer concepts can be difficult
to express. However I believe the concepts should be
made more clear, omitted, or moved to informative
parts of a document without prescriptive status. 

Second general comment: Some terms have specialized
meanings that are not in the general domain, or fully
applicable without modification in my humble opinion
(IMHO). I applaud the Working Group (WG) in respecting
and utilizing prior art. However, terms like
"structure", "delivery units", "authored units" leave
me confused with regard to the user's and author's
experiences. 

For instance, a web "page" delivered from a server
could be decribed as a "delivery unit". This is a
wonderful way to describe a communication protocol
interaction. However, I believe it is only partially
helpful to describe authoring or user actions and
experiences. The web page may contain many segments
with their own diverse qualities, content, and
functionality.

Specific comments. Please pardon me if my reading is
naive.

1.1.1 When we say an "alternative that identifies the
multimedia", what do we mean and what standard can be
applied? Is an acceptable alternative a descriptive
label that "identifies" the multimedia resource,
material that provides an equivalent substitute, or
some other alternatives? 

1.2.2 Restricting multimedia to only audio and video
channels may be too restrictive. We may need to
provide products and experiences with "haptic",
"vestibular sense", perhaps even "olfactory"
qualities. Alternate sensory channels can be helpful
sensory alternatives for differently-abled
individuals.

1.3.1 The definition provided of "structure" may not
map well to user and author experience and required
actions. As noted above.

3.2.1 The criteria for a "change of context" is not
clear to me. Presumably a "small change" does not
change the context and a "large" one does. However,
reasonable people may disagree given the current
definition IMHO.

4.1.1 The definition of "delivery units" may not be
the most apt here with regard to user experience or
authoring action. As noted above.

4.2.2. The definition of "basline" is not fully clear
to me. As noted above.

Thanks once again for the opportunity to provide
input.

Sincerely

Richard D. Herring

Edison, NJ 08837 USA
+1 (732) 738-3810
mailto:kg2pu@arrl.net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 17:59:59 UTC

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