Commenter: Andrew Arch
Email: andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org
Affiliation: Vision Australia
Date: June 2006
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #1
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: Authoring Tools
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 1 says "as a result authoring tools WILL play an important role ..." - implying a future role for authoring at some time in the future. Authoring tolls paly an important role NOW.
6) Proposed Change: change wording to "as a result authoring tools play an important role ..."
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #2
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: Authoring Tools
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 2 talks about ATAG 1.0 and ATAG 2.0 in relation to the current date. This sentence will date rapidly depending on the relative releases of WCAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0.
6) Proposed Change: change wording to reflect the 'current' ATAG release - possibly by specifying ATAG 1.0 release year and just saying that ATAG 2.0 is due for release in 200x (x = 6/7/8??)
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #3
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: New Terms
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: thye term 'web unit' needs some examples about when the term 'web page' may not apply
6) Proposed Change: add some examples to "..may not apply" such as 'webcast' or 'multimedia object'
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #4
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Why do we need to say that Triple-A only requires conformance to a portion of the level 3 SC? This was the case in WCAG 1 at all levels and we just used to say NA (not applicable) for a checkpoint if there was no multimedia or no frames etc. This particularly relates to the later section suggesting that only 50% of level 3 SC need to be met to claim Triple-A
6) Proposed Change: rephrase this Note to specify that not all level 3 SC might apply, and a web unit only needs to conform to the applicable ones to claim triple-A conformance
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #5
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 3 - "even conformance to all three levels will not make web content accessible to all people". Some guidance needs to be provided as to what else is required to make the content accessible to all - OR who is not included in WCAG 2.0
6) Proposed Change: additional references/pointers are required
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #6
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 3 - "... all SC are essential for some people". However, the previous para indicates that Level 1 is sufficient to provide a minimum level of accessibility. This is contradictory.
6) Proposed Change: address the contradiction
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #7
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 4 - "When people who understand WCAG 2.0 test the same content using the same success criteria, the same results should be obtained with high inter-rater reliability". More than just an understanding of WCAG 2.0 is required - these people also need an understaning of how PWD interact with the web, with or without assistive technologies.
6) Proposed Change: add something extra to the qualifications that WCAG 2.0 testers are required to have to obtain the same results.
Also suggest changing "high inter-rater reliability" to "high inter-tester reliability"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #8
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Note (para 5) - reads like an 'out' - could be taken to give developers the option of using any technique they deem to be accessible, regardless of how a PWD uses the web
6) Proposed Change: Strengthen/change the Note to make it clearer what a developer is expected to do. No concrete suggestion.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #9
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 2 - User agents not only "help in retrieving and rendering Web content", but also in interacting with web content
6) Proposed Change: change sentence to "help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #10
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Choosing baseline technologies
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 1 - "assume" is dangerous - they need to "know" the technologies "are" supported.
6) Proposed Change: change sentence from "authors need to know what technologies they can assume will be supported by"
to "authors need to know what technologies are supported by"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #11
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Choosing baseline technologies
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 2 - "browser" is used - should it be "user agent"?
6) Proposed Change: consider changing sentence "since some users many have user agents that support them"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #12
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Who sets baselines
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 1 - I didn't understand "customers" setting baselines - for a large organisation doing it's own development, the concept of its 'customers' setting the basleine is ridiculous
6) Proposed Change: openiong sentence may need clarification
Also - 'governmental' does not seem right, should it just be 'government'?
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #13
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Who sets baselines
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Examples of scenarios do not seem realistic - what happened to Banks, News sites, Supermarkets, etc providing private services online or selling goods online?
6) Proposed Change: more examples are needed - or relegate the examples to the "About Baseline" accompanying document
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #14
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: general
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: In the discussion of baseline and conformance, it seems that there is potential for misuse of baseline [e.g.
authors might be able to just declare their own level of technology, for instance: "requires CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2." The actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.
W3C/WAI should consider setting realistic excample baslines for 'everyday' websites in developed/LD countries.
6) Proposed Change: Some possible strategies include:
a) to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Internet sites
today, W3C should publish a 'reasonable/realistic' baseline recommended for a general audience;
b) update this 'recommended' baseline annually;
c) place the 'recommended' baseline outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative document;
d) provide an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #15
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance levels and the baseline
3) Part of Item: #3 AAA
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: I disagree with allowing 50% conformance as sufficient for a AAA pass - we should take the same approach as WCAG 1.0 and require all checkpoints to be passed unless they are 'not applicable'. This approach still works with the concept that not all level 3 SC will apply to all web content.
6) Proposed Change: change from 50% to "100% unless not applicable"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #16
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Para one is all abut working group process - leave out
The second para in this section opens with stuff about W3C (working group) process - it doesn't seemt to belong here at all
6) Proposed Change: Reconsider this whole section - TR readers don't need to know about the workings or history of the working group.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #17
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 (Non-Normative)
3) Part of Item: Comparison Table
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Some screen readers do not recognise addition levels of | within a data table.
6) Proposed Change: Split Comparison table into a series of tables at each | row. Also better for printing when browsers support CSS 'keep with next' approach in print stylesheet.
-------------------------------------------------
|