W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:34:56 -0500
To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <024301c7a45a$0c998cb0$5c34d24b@NC84301>

Thank you very much.

   You have addressed my comments.

Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-comments-wcag20-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:35 PM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
>
>
> Dear Gregg Vanderheiden ,
>
> Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working
> Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG
> 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We
> appreciate the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
>
> We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We
> received many constructive comments, and sometimes addressing
> one issue would cause us to revise wording covered by an
> earlier issue. We therefore waited until all comments had
> been addressed before responding to commenters.
>
> This message contains the comments you submitted and the
> resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to
> the archived copy of your original comment on
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/,
> and may also include links to the relevant changes in the
> updated WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/.
>
> PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and
> reply to us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say
> whether you are satisfied with the decision taken. Note that
> this list is publicly archived.
>
> We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG
> 2.0 Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the
> guidelines and the accompanying documents substantially. A
> detailed summary of issues, revisions, and rationales for
> changes is at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please
> see http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the
> current review.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
>
> On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060502171700.E4442BDA7@w3c4.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-517)
>
> Part of Item: Intent
> Comment Type: ED
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
>
> In the GL list Wendy posted the following explaination that i
> think would be good to add to the intent section to explain.
> John suggested an edit which is also included.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> WCAG 1.0 says "If you can't avoid building stairs, build an elevator."
> It doesn't say anything about making the elevator easy to
> find or get to. SC 4.2.1 of WCAG 2.0 says, "If you can't
> avoid building stairs, provide an elevator at the main
> entrance, along with the stairs."
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> Thank you for reminding us to include this important
> distinction. The idea that "If you can't avoid building
> stairs, build an elevator." was in WCAG 1.0. WCAG 2.0 wants
> to ensure that making the elevator easy to find (or get to)
> is also important. SC 4.2.1 of WCAG 2.0 has been updated to
> include, "The idea behind this success criterion is; "If you
> can't avoid building stairs, provide an elevator that is just
> as easily found."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060619060917.B717947BA1@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-821)
>
> Part of Item: Description
> Comment Type: ED
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> the title of this technique refers to
> \"Placing a link to the transcript immediately next to the
> non-text content\"
> However, a transcript is not sufficient here. It needs to be
> a \" full multimedia text alternative including any interaction  \"
>
> Proposed Change:
>
>   Change \"transcript\" to   \" full multimedia text alternative
> including any interaction  \"
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> The title has been revised to read, "Placing a link to the
> full text alternative for multimedia including any
> interaction immediately next to the non-text content."
>
>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 14:35:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC