WCAG 2.0 Comments

Hello WG members,

Please refer to the attached document as my comments on WCAG 2.0 Last 
Call Working Draft.

Sincerery,

Kiyochika

-- 
Kiyochika Nakamura
Web Development Team
Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.
Shinjuku Square Tower 15F,
6-22-1 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-1115 JAPAN
Phone: +81-3-3344-7401 / Fax +81-3-3344-7402
E-Mail: nakamura-kiyochika@mitsue.co.jp
http://www.mitsue.co.jp/

Commenter: Kiyochika Nakamura

Email: nakamura-kiyochika@mitsue.co.jp

Affiliation: Mitsue-Links Co., Ltd.

Date: June 22, 2006

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #1

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 1.3.5

3) Part of Item: Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: This success criterion should be Level 1 because if it isn't satisfied, information could not be conveyed, at least for screen reader users. In the conformance section, a minimum level of accessibility is defined as a level 1 success criteria. Without this criterion, some important information might be conveyed to some users. So, I believe it is essential to achieve a minimum level of accessibility.

6) Proposed Change: Move this success criterion to level 1.

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #2

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 1.4.1 and 1.4.3

3) Part of Item: Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4 and Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: Is there any scientific or other basis for a luminosity contrast ratio method? Also, is there any reason to choose 5:1 and 10:1? I understand that a reference value is needed for these criteria because it should be testable, but if there is no basis, how can we rely on it? 

6) Proposed Change: Add a link to the document which explains why 5:1 and 10:1 LCR ratio are sufficient if there is such a document. Otherwise, explain why the WG has decided to choose 5:1 and 10:1.

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #3

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 1.4.4

3) Part of Item: Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: Is there any basis for saying that a 20 decibel difference is good enough? How do I explain to our custormers when they ask why it requires a 20 decibel difference? I think "just because WCAG 2.0 stetes" is not a sufficient answer.

6) Proposed Change: Add a note or any kind of explanation which states the reason why a 20 decibel difference has been chosen.

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #4

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 1.4.2

3) Part of Item: Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: This success criterion should be Level 1 because, for example, if it isn't satisfied and background audio interferes screen readers, information could not be conveyed. Also, even if a mechanism to turn off background audio is provided, some users could not find the mechanism because of its background audio, so it would be better that the success criterion itself was reconsidered.

6) Proposed Change: Move this success criterion to level 1. And possibly restates the criterion such that "do not play background audio without user request.

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #5

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 2.2.1

3) Part of Item: Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.2

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: Why this criterion allows the time-out which is not essential for its function? If the first three list items of the criteria are allowed, some users might not be able to read through the content. For example, when the function to deactivate the time-out is provided but it is placed on the end of the page, then some users cannot reach the function before the time-out.

6) Proposed Change: Omit the first three list items from this criterion.

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #6

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: 4.1.1

3) Part of Item: Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 4.1

4) Comment Type: T

5) Comment: The term, "parsed unambiguously," or "parsed into only one data structure" is not good enough to comply with the principle 4. The principle states that "content should be robust enough to work with current and future user agents." Then, if web units or authored components are well-formed but include information not based on chosen technologies, can we guarantee that this information is conveyed? Therefore, I believe if forward compatibility is important, "conforming to specifications" would be better than "parsed unambiguously."

6) Proposed Change: Using the phrase "conforming to specifications" instead of the phrase "parsed unambiguously."

-------------------------------------------------

COMMENT #7

1) Document Abbreviation: W2

2) Item Number: Appendix A: Glossary

3) Part of Item: idioms

4) Comment Type: E

5) Comment: In example 3, the Japanese phrase after the round bracket, "どうすることもできなくなり、あきらめること", is the meaning of the phrase "さじを投げる". Therefore, it doesn't need to be inserted here. Also, this Japanese expression is a present form. So, either changing the Japanese phrase into past tense or the English sentense into present form is needed.

6) Proposed Change: Remove the characters between the round bracket and the closing double quotation mark (including the round bracket.) Then, either change "さじを投げる" into "さじを投げた", or English verbs into past forms.

-------------------------------------------------