Commenter: Working groups of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Internet Advisory Committee
Official contact: M.F. Laughton
Email: adio@crc.ca
Affiliation: Government of Canada
Date: 2006-06-21
Please ensure that the comments submitted are as complete and "resolvable" as possible. Thank you.
1. |
2. |
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 | Introduction | The Four Principles of Accessibility | G/T | Principle 1: Content must be perceivable. There is nothing in the current edition of WCAG to ensure Color requirements / User Choices of color/presentation/font needs are respected or requirements in the new WCAG. A low vision user doesn't want a text equivalent, they want something in a presentation they can read. Ie: 18 point font or black background and white text. |
There should be explicit guidance relating to color/presentation/font usage, as at least a level 2 success criterion. |
| W2 | Guideline 2.4 | 2.4.6 | G/T | When a Web unit or authored component is navigated sequentially, components receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. In our experience, failure to meet this criterion renders many "accessible" pages "unusable" in any practical sense. | Should be a level 2 criteria |
| W2 | Guideline 2.4 | 2.4.8 | G/T | The purpose of each link can be programmatically determined from the
link. "Meaningful" link text is no longer a high priority: it should be. Navigating via links benefits a large number of users including those using keyboard access, voice rec, alternate input and screen reading technology. It remains in many cases the only means that many users can navigate content in an efficient and useful manner. |
Should be a level 2 criteria |
| W2 | Guideline 3.1 | 3.1.3 | G/T | A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and jargon. We feel that indiscriminate (and unfortunately wide-spread) use of such jargon is a greater barrier to understanding and using Web content than is implied by its relegation to level 3. | Should be a level 2 criteria |
| W2 | Guideline 3.1 | 3.1.? | G/T | The document lacks any reference to dealing with "unusual user interface features or behaviours" that are likely to confuse the first-time/novice user. We feel that such should be described to the user before they are encountered. | Add a level 3 (at least) success criterion - perhaps to Guideline 3.1 - requiring that "Explain/describe/warn about the existence of unusual user interface features or behaviours before they are encountered. |
| W2 | Guideline 4.2 | Ensure that content is accessible or provide an accessible alternative | G/T | It is felt that this is a very weak part of the guidelines. | A level 2 item should stress that the initial or primary "presentation of the content" is accessible, not just some version. |
| W2 | Appendix A | Regular Expression | G/T/E | Rather than attempting to explain this term, the authors provide a link to the definition in "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, Appendix F". The "definition" in the XML Schema is incomprehensible to the majority of us. Presumably the purpose of including a word in the glossary is to render it understandable to people who don't already understand it. | Please explain it in layman's terms and provide the link to XML Schema only as a supplemental reference. |
| W2 | G | Some of the suggestions made in this submission - if not implemented in W2 - will possibly find inclusion in a future version of the Government of Canada's "Common Look and Feel Policy" for federal Web sites either as standards (requirements) or guidelines (optional/best practices). Unfortunately, this will lead to a "disharmonization" [sic] of standards which is in no-one's best interest. | |||
| W2/UW | G | The baseline concept is still difficult to comprehend in real-world terms, in spite of progressive reworkings of the baseline explanation in "About Baselines and WCAG 2.0" and the less comprehensible "Conformance" section in W2. | |||
| QR1 | G | This customizable "view" of WCAG 2.0 is far and away the best thing the working group has done for the average end user. We hope this resource continues to be developed and maintained. It is likely to be the main entry point to W2 for many of our users. The opportunity to bypass inapplicable content is irresistable. | The same paradigm should be used for future support materials created by the GL working group and/or the Education and Outreach working group. | ||
| QR | Unfortunately, the selection form requires (or presupposes) a firmer grasp of the baseline concept than many of us have yet been able to achieve. The resulting view if a technology is used but in or not it the baseline is not as clear as we think it ought to be. | If feasible, it would be nice if any set of selections also generated a corresponding example of a conformance statement (metadata ready) and a verbal example of what that baseline means and how to interpret it (similar to the examples in "About Baselines and WCAG 2.0"). |