Comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft -- AG block 1

Commenter: Al Gilman

Email: Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org

Affiliation:

Date: 9 May 2006

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	3.1.6	"where meaning cannot be determined without pronunciation. "	T	This clause is unenforceably vague. NLP looks at the term in context and can always produce a vector of meanings weighted with probabilities. This language gives no standard as to how well one has to have isolated one meaning before considering "meaning can be determined without [further help e.g.] pronunciation." Are you OK if the right meaning is the maximum-likelihood estimate? If it is more than 80% likely? If no other meaning is as close as half as likely? What?	merge into 3.1.3, as the relevant mechanisms are interchangeable.
W2	2.4.7	"location within a set of Web units"	T	Clause is trivially vague. It will either be satisfied or inapplicable, because there is no standard for what set of Web units is pertinent.	Introduce concepts of breadcrumb trail as vertical thread through topic categories from here to home and task-phase bar as steps in a sequential process. If one is in a sequential process, need latter to get credit; else former. Because of former, never 'not applicable.' Location within site is always applicable and desirable.
W2	2.5	placement in outline	T	These provisions belong under principle 3. Their domain is the understanding of action opportunities, not whether or not the user can activate them.	Reorganize. See comments elsewhere on organization.
W2	2.5.2	"and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing the security or purpose of the content" level	T	Clause is trivially vague. It will either be satisfied or be inapplicable, because there is no objective standard for when the "and..." condition is met. This provision is general good usability practice. The suggestions usually come from the browser's memory of user's response to similar questions in other content. Hence is not a content requirement, but a user experience desideratum which may be satisfied by user's automation or the data received from the author's automation.	move to informative annex noting good usability practices that are especially appreciated in the PWD Web experience.
W2	2.5.3	OR list of optional sub-tests	T	Sub-case 1 is by definition not applicable. If the action is reversable, then the user action does not cause i.e. commit to the transaction. Sub-case 2 is insufficient. Having the system check for a subset of the system's concerns is in no way an indication of the user's informed consent to commit the transaction. Sub-case 3 is the requirement.	Eliminate OR and leave the "opportunity to review" provision only. Make a note that if the transaction is reversible then the review is required before the subsequent commit transaction, but that this test is not required at the interim step.
W2	2.5.4	"for text input"	T	is too narrow	"for any input where the possible inputs are more varied than five to nine well-known choices"