Comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft and Support Documents

Commenter: Gottfried Zimmermann

Email: gzimmermann@acm.org

Affiliation: Invited expert on W3C PF

Date: 2006-05-22

Directions

Column 1: Enter the abbreviation for the Document you are commenting on:
- W2 for WCAG 2.0.
- UW(or HTM) for Understanding WCAG document (and for the How To Meet sections of this doc).
- TD for Techniques document.
Column 2: Enter the major section name or Item number of the guideline, success criterion, technique etc that you are commenting on.
- For example "Intro" for introduction "1.1" for a guideline 1.1, "3.2.1" for success criterion 3.2.1, "H-56" for HTML technique number H-56
Column 3: Enter the heading for the section you are commenting on.
- E.g. "Intent", or "Description", or "Examples", etc.
Column 4: Enter the type of comment you are making
- G = General (i.e., applies to whole document)
- T = Technical (i.e., deals with substance)
- E = Editorial (i.e., concerns grammar, wording, formatting, etc.)
- Q = Question (i.e. not requesting any change).
All : are required.
Filling out column 6 greatly increases our ability to understand and address your concern.

Please ensure that the comments submitted are as complete and "resolvable" as possible. Thank you.

1. Document Abbv. (W2/UW/TD)	2. Item Number (e.g. 1.1)	3. Part of Item (Heading)	4. Comment Type (G/T/E/Q)	5. Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change)	6. Proposed Change (Be specific)
W2	Conformance	Conformance claims - Conformance notes	T	The note in section "Conformance notes" states conformance for the case of content negotiation. The requirement that only the page returned with no content negotiation needs to comply with WCAG 2.0 is too weak, with regard to content negotiation for alternate language delivery. A page should comply for all of its language versions. As an example, consider a website where only the English version (default for content negotiation on language) is accessible according to WCAG 2.0. The website could claim conformance although all non-English users would get inaccessible web pages through their user agents.	Add to the note: "Exception: This note does not apply for alternative language versions being delivered through content negotiation. A Web unit conforms to WCAG 2.0 only if all its language versions conform."
W2	4.1	4.2.1 4.2.3	T	These success criteria would make a web page with multiple language versions compliant, with only one version being conformant and the others being inaccessible. We need to exempt alternative language versions from this success criterion. This should be mentioned and the definition of "alternate version(s)" should be amended correspondingly. Essence: An accessible page in Korean is not an equivalent alternative for an inaccessable page in Urdu.	Add to 4.2.1 and 4.2.3: "This does not apply to alternate versions serving different languages." Also, change the definition of "alternate version(s)" to exclude versions serving different languages, e.g.: "version that provides all of the same information and functionality in the same natural language and is as up to date as any non-conformant content".