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: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 07:01:38 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0706050701o16a964c0s835dd8fd1a1e7703@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Thank you very much.

You have addressed my comments.

Loretta

On 5/17/07, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> Dear Loretta Guarino Reid ,
>
> 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/20061023191405.9A640D7467@saba.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
> (Issue ID: LC-1524)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: substantive
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> One of the clauses of 1.1.1 addresses General non-text content:
> General Non-text Content: If non-text content presents information or
> responds to user input, then text alternatives serve the same purpose
> and present the same information as the non-text content. If text
> alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at
> least identify the purpose of the non-text content.
>
> It is hard to imagine how a text alternative can ever serve the same
> purpose as content that responds to user input, which makes this very
> confusing. It seems that the only way to satisfy this for content that
> responds to user input is to  provide a text alternative that
> identifies the purpose of the content, that is, a label. However,
> labels are already required for user interface components in SC 4.1.2.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> 1. Define non-text content so that it is clear that content that
> responds to user input is not covered by this SC.
> 2. With this change, clarify the statement of SC 1.1.1 and the How to
> Meet document.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have modified SC 1.1.1 to address this issue. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#text-equiv-all .
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:01:50 UTC

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