W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:16:45 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060616181645.EF91847BA1@mojo.w3.org>

Name: Sailesh Panchang
Email: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Affiliation: Deque Systems Inc
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.2.3
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Confusing: repetition of requirements for SC at different levels

Question: Does complying with an SC at L1 automatically leads to compliance of an SC at L2?

Example: When audio descriptions for a video are provided (SC1.2.2) then SC 1.2.3 is also being complied with simultaneously, is it not?

In this context what is the difference between  ‘minimum level’ and ‘enhanced level’ of accessibility? In what context ? Who decides if it is minimum or enhanced?

In the understanding WCAG 2.0 doc there are no distinctions highlighted between 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 as far as audio descriptions and level of accessibility are concerned.

Conversely, why is not the SC at L1 for GL 1.1 also listed at L2?

Proposed Change:
Do not repeat  requirements at L2  if they are already listed at L1 for a guideline; and do not repeat at L3 what is already stated at L1 or L2 for a guideline.  

Signed language interpretation is required only at L3 for 1.2 and this is not repeated at L1 or L2. This is how it should be.
Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 18:16:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC