Template for comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft and Support Documents

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	appendixD.html	Appendix D	T	from the appendix... "If style sheets are in your baseline, WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1 (that the word order of text needs to make sense without css) is not required;" I do not understand this example, In fact it seems to highlight the problem of baseline - that an accessibility problem will persist even if a technology is supported by Assistive technology. For example An Assistive technology may be able to work with Aural CSS (if it was not depreciated) display visible, phuedo class etc, and still not be able to work out what the reading order is just based of pixel positioning of test in columns (without more information). surely text out of order will not be understandable by assistive technologies even when CSS is supported? 7, Overall people are struggling understanding the baseline concept. One person, hugely talented and experienced in accessibility thought that if all pages used CSS then 6.1 does not matter any more	How can we define baseline so that 6.1 is supported in this baseline?
W2	3.2.		T	Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it Success criteria does not include what is require to make AJAX regions accessible	require blocks are identifiable
W2	3.1	Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1	T	mechanism is available for .... A mechanism is only useful if: it is usable by AT or b, it is usable by the user	change definition of mechanism to process or technique for achieving a result that is easy (does not require a change of context, and uses simple language) for the user to use can be programmatically determined for AT for people with learning disabilities
W2	Abstract		G	This document contains principles, guidelines, and success criteria that define and explain the requirements for making Web-based information and applications accessible. "Accessible" means usable to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations... I am not sure that if pages are fixed to comply to WCAG they will be more accessible to LD	Change to exclude Learning disabilities.
W2	Conformance	note 1	T	Quote: Because not all level 3 success criteria can be used with all types of content, Triple-A conformance only requires conformance to a portion of level 3 success criteria This means that no one will bother with level three because you can claim Triple-A conformance by just doing one level 3 SC	Remove this paragraph
W2	3.1	Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1	T	The primary natural language is identified. Why is this level 1? I have not seen an assistive technology and user not work at all because the language attribute is missing. this seems to be level 3	move to level 3
	3.1	Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1	T	changes in natural language is identified: Is WCAG awere that this is huge amount of work? for lots of content this would be more work then the rest of WCAG put together (all the has English in for web site names and odd words..). On the other hand it seems typically understandable by the user as is, and not so important for the user..	move SC 3.2 to level 3

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)

appendixD.html

Appendix D

from the appendix...

"If style sheets are in your baseline, WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1 (that the word order of text needs to make sense without css) is not required;"

I do not understand this example, In fact it seems to highlight the problem of baseline - that an accessibility problem will persist even if a technology is supported by Assistive technology. For example An Assistive technology may be able to work with Aural CSS (if it was not depreciated) display visible, phuedo class etc, and still not be able to work out what the reading order is just based of pixel positioning of test in columns (without more information).

surely text out of order will not be understandable by assistive technologies even when CSS is supported?

7, Overall people are struggling understanding the baseline concept. One person, hugely talented and experienced in accessibility thought that if all pages used CSS then 6.1 does not matter any more

How can we define baseline so that 6.1 is supported in this baseline?

3.2.

Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it

Success criteria does not include what is require to make AJAX regions accessible

require blocks are identifiable

3.1

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

mechanism is available for ....

A mechanism is only useful if: it is usable by AT or b, it is usable by the user

change definition of mechanism to process or technique for achieving a result that is easy (does not require a change of context, and uses simple language) for the user to use can be programmatically determined for AT for people with learning disabilities

Abstract

This document contains principles, guidelines, and success criteria that define and explain the requirements for making Web-based information and applications accessible. "Accessible" means usable to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations...

I am not sure that if pages are fixed to comply to WCAG they will be more accessible to LD

Change to exclude Learning disabilities.

Conformance

note 1

Quote: Because not all level 3 success criteria can be used with all types of content, Triple-A conformance only requires conformance to a portion of level 3 success criteria

This means that no one will bother with level three because you can claim Triple-A conformance by just doing one level 3 SC

Remove this paragraph

3.1 Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

The primary natural language is identified.
Why is this level 1? I have not seen an assistive technology and user not work at all because the language attribute is missing. this seems to be level 3

move to level 3

3.1

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1

changes in natural language is identified:
Is WCAG awere that this is huge amount of work? for lots of content this would be more work then the rest of WCAG put together (all the has English in for web site names and odd words..).
On the other hand it seems typically understandable by the user as is, and not so important for the user..

move SC 3.2 to level 3