Commenter: Lisa seeman
Email: lisa@ubaccess.com
Affiliation: Invited expert at W3C, UB access
Date: May 17 2006
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 | 3.2.2 |
Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.2 |
T |
Some widgets - such as a tree, the tab order will and should
change when a component is expanded. It make no sense to say that that
is not OK unless it is not predicable. As AT becomes used to these widgets, instruction will not be required |
Changing the setting of any form control or field does not
automatically cause a change of context
(beyond moving to the next field in tab order or behavior for a
progamaticly determinable widget type.), unless the authored
unit contains instructions before the control that describe the
behavior |
| W2 | 3.2. |
Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.2 |
T |
I am concerned that level 1 SC will act against automatic
help and combined with information hiding. For example when
information is hidden unless you focus on the element in
question, and then all the sub information about it is given. If you do not hide the information then the page becomes busy and you can not see what the main points are. If the user has a two strep process to access the information, then they may never receive it. As with many SC, they are OK if you read the definition, but if you just read the text it is misleading |
change the term "change of context" to "confusing
change in context" the definition can remain the same |
| W2 | 1.2 |
T |
I am concerned that the requirement for real time
synrcrization put a lot of extra work on authors who would like to
provide short animations or clips that help people with learning
disabilities fulfill a task. On the whole, a lot of multi media, especially in education, is good for many learning disabilities, and these requirements may act as a step backwards for learning disabilities. |
Make an exception in 1.2 for any content provides extra
help visual for tasks and information that has been
described in text else wear. |
|
| W2 | 3.2. | T |
to my mind the most important aspect if predictability is
exposing to the user agent what each thing is. That way the
interface can be tailored to the user's access strategy. If XHTML 2 roles are known - what is main and what is secondary navigation, then the order becomes less important |
add success criteria |
|
| W2 | ALL |
T |
Terms in the document often seem to mean something a bit
different, until you read the definitions. As WCAG is often quoted the
terms themselves should be as close to clear language as the can be
without viewing the definitions. |
change the term "programticly determined", to "supported by
Assistive technology". |
|
| W2 | 3.2.3 | . Adaptive interfaces are a good thing. sometimes change is because we know more about what the user likes | ..change the wording ...occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user or may benifit the user |
||
| W2 | http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html | G |
To get to CR (candidate recommendation we believe two things
are required. 1, Concrete checkpoints or list of requirements 2, Tests that completion of the minimum requirements of success criteria at each level will make sites progressively usable for people with disabilities listed in the overview. |
Create a list of "what to do" checkpoint |
|
| W2 | http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html |
· Level 3 success criteria: 1. Achieve additional accessibility enhancements. 2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. I object to definition . Because many
criteria are
level 3 only because they are considered too hard to do on all web
content does
not mean that level 1 and two achieve minimal and enhanced
accessibility. |
change
of wording Level 3 success criteria: 1. Achieve minimal accessibility , or, if the Success criteria can be applied to all Web content, achieves additional accessibility enhancements. 2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. |
||
| W2 | http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html | introduction |
G |
The claim in http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, However the checkpoints towards understandability even at level 3 addresses only secondary education level – in other word usable for mainstream people without these disabilities. The basic mechanism for simplifications have not been included, or use of symbols or conversion to symbols. Also left out are use for controlled languagesThe result: I read a lot of complex specification. I am even writing W3C specifications, but WXAG is the only on that I can not follow though because of my disability. I ca understand the concepts, but the presentation requires remembering what technique 3.1.3 was for, and then (if I forgot what 3.2.3 stood for, going back to the original guidelines finding it, hopefully not confusing it with 1..3.2 etc – why because WCAG are following there own specifications, so I, as a person with a disability , can not use their material. to say “this document contains
principles,
guidelines, and success criteria that define and explain the
requirements for
making Web-based information and applications accessible” and to
include
learning difficulties, cognitive limitations is
an insult to anyone with learning memory or
cognitive
impairments. there are many clear sets of guidelines that do that. WCAG
is not one of them. |
Practical proposal – state clearly that learning difficulties, cognitive limitations are not fully addressed beyond a very limited way. Then work on a extended guideline, be it optional and untestable, success criteria that does the job. |
| W2 | http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html | T |
1.
Identifying changes in
natural languages USING
a technology-specific technique listed below AND Identifying text
direction of passages and phrases USING a
technology-specific technique
listed below (for a technology in your baseline) " The
example is an odd one
because always, when changing direction, you are changing characters
and there
for it is , by definition programticly
determined More
over bILI languages
change direction all the times whenever numbers are used. Are you
really
expecting each number to be in it’s own span? Why not follow the
standard BILI algorithms |
Remove this paragraph |