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: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:51:41 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070606103019.03335b10@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Loretta Guarino Reid,

At 01:32 18/05/2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>Dear Christophe Strobbe ,
>
>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.
>(...
>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/.
>(...)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 1:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622133646.2D403DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-879)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: question
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>Please define or point to criteria for \"high inter-rater
>reliability\". This is important for developing evaluation procedures
>based on WCAG 2.0 (especially evaluation procedures that can be
>repeated with the same results for the same content, although, after
>reading http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.htm and
>http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/reliab.htm, inter-rater
>reliability is not the same thing as test-retest reliability).
>
>There was an action item for research on inter-rater reliability
>(http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02) but I
>don\'t know what came out of it.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which multiple evaluators of
>a task or performance give identical ratings. This is often measured
>by Cohen's kappa, where 0 indicates agreement due to chance alone and
>1 indicating perfect agreement.  See
>http://www.measurementexperts.org/instrument/term_pocket_terms.asp
>
>Test-retest refers to the ability of the same person to come up with
>the same results each time they rate something.
>
>Inter-rater reliability is a tougher standard than test-retest.
>
>We no longer use this term in WCAG 2.0. Instead, we have revised this
>section to say "The same results should be obtained with a high level
>of confidence when people who understand how people with different
>types of disabilities use the Web test the same content."

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 2:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622134220.19D64DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-880)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>Item 2 of optional components of a conformance claim appears to add
>little useful information to a conformance claim because it is a
>subset of the baseline information (item 5 of required components of a
>conformance claim). It seems more useful to me to state which
>technologies in the baseline are not used or relied upon.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Remove item 2 of optional components of a conformance claim or replace
>it with a list of technologies that are in the baseline but not relied
>upon.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>The list of technologies relied upon is useful for users who may
>prefer particular technologies. It is easier to search for a listed
>technology than to search for technologies that are in a documented
>list of accessibility-supported technologies, but are not in the
>relied upon technologies.
>
>Documented lists of accessibility-supported web technologies
>(previously referred to as baselines) may include many more
>technologies than are used on any given web site. For instance, there
>may be many different multimedia formats included in such a list. We
>wish to avoid the situation in which a web page that contains no
>multimedia would need to list all of them.

Thank you for the clarification. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 3:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622134616.A1538DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-881)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>Item 4 of \'optional components of a conformance claim\' reads: \"A
>list of user agents that the content has been tested on. This *should*
>include assistive technologies\" (emphasis added).
>\'Should\' is not a very useful verb in optional information: it boils
>down to a non-requirement within a non-requirement.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Replace item 4 of \'optional components of a conformance claim\' with:
>\"A list of user agents, including assistive technologies, that the
>content has been tested on.\"
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>The draft has been updated as proposed.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 4:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622134837.D8B26DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-882)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>The note to SC 3.1.2 reads: \"This requirement does not apply to
>individual words or phrases that have become part of the primary
>language of the content.\": this is a problem for foreign words in a
>passage or quote that is not in the primary language.
>This wording was introduced in the June 2006 Working Draft; before
>that, it read \"This does not include use of foreign words in text
>where such usage is a standard extension of the language,\" but I
>believe this was changed because the term \"foreign\" was considered
>problematic.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Rephrase the note to: \"This requirement does not apply to individual
>words or phrases that have become part of the language of the
>immediately neighbouring text.\"
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have revised the note to read, "This requirement does not apply to
>individual words. It also does not apply to proper names, to technical
>terms or to phrases that have become part of the language of the
>context in which they are used."

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 5:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622135006.5EF9933201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-883)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>SC 3.1.4 reads: \" A mechanism for finding the expanded form of
>abbreviations is available.\"
>
>Since technique G102 (Providing the expansion or explanation of an
>abbreviation) devotes a lot of attention to situations where you
>don\'t need to provide an expansion, but e.g. an explanation, this SC
>could be reworded as \"A mechanism for finding the meaning of
>abbreviations is available.\" Providing the expansion is only one way
>to provide the meaning.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Reword SC 3.1.4 to: \"A mechanism for finding the meaning of
>abbreviations is available.\"
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have updated the success criterion to read, "A mechanism for
>finding the expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available."

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.

>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 6:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060628180220.AF9E733201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1406)
>
>Part of Item: Intent
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>I have been working on a Dutch translation of the guidelines and
>noticed that \"legal transactions\" is hard to translate into Dutch in
>a way that rings a bell with readers; I translated it as if it meant
>\"transactions recognized by the law\".
>Other translators may also have this problem because \"legal
>transactions\" in the SC text is not clarified in the intent of HtM
>2.5.3. If it means \"transactions where the person incurs a legally
>binding obligation or benefit (a marriage license, a stock trade
>(financial and legal), a will, a loan, adoption, signing up for the
>army, a contract of any type, etc), please clarify this.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Add the following to the intent of HtM 2.5.3: \"Legal transactions are
>transactions where someone incurs a legally binding obligation or
>benefit, for example a marriage license, a stock trade (financial and
>legal), a will, a loan, adoption, signing up for the army, a contract
>of any type, etcetera.\"
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have revised the success criterion (now SC 3.3.3) to read, "For
>forms that cause legal commitments   or financial transactions to
>occur, that modify or delete  user-controllable   data in data storage
>systems, or that submit test responses, at least one of the following
>is true..." We have also added a definition for legal commitments.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 7:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060817170452.F420113AB0@seamus.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1470)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>The definition of Web unit is still ambiguous.
>
>(1) If an HTML document (home.htm) has various linked stylesheets (one
>for screen, one for print, one for projection, ...), these are not all
>intended to be rendered together. I think the the following would all
>count as Web units:
>- home.htm with the CSS for \'screen\',
>- home.htm with the CSS for \'projection\',
>- home.htm with the CSS for \'braille\',
>- home.htm with the CSS for \'aural\',
>- ...
>However, this is not clear from the definition. If these are all
>different web units, it is also impossible to identify them with a
>URL, because the URL is the same for each.
>
>(2) If an HTML page uses an object element with one or more fallbacks
>nested inside it (see the example slightly below
>http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#idx-object-5),
>I think the Web unit you claim conformance for is the HTML document
>with the outermost object element (with the TheEarth.py applet).
>However, the content of each of the nested object elements is not
>meant to be rendered together with the content of all the other object
>elements. Does that mean that there is a different web unit per
>fallback/nested object element?
>
>(3) If a web page uses frames, the content of some of the frames
>depends on the user\'s interaction: e.g. clicking a link in the
>navigation frame opens a different document in the content frame. So
>the URL that identifies the frameset document does not always identify
>the same Web unit, unless the Web unit is limited to what is loaded by
>default.
>
>(4) If user agent X requests URL http://www.example.com/ with MIME
>type aaa/bbb and user agent Y requests the same URL with MIME type
>ccc/ddd, and they get different web units because of the different
>MIME type, the URL cannot be used to differentiate between the two web
>units. Does that mean these are different Web  units according to the
>current definition?
>
>Most of this was previously discussed on the ERT mailing list in the
>context of conformance claims (see
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2006May/0029.html
>and next messages in the same thread) and forwarded to the GL list
>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006AprJun/0181.html).
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have revised the guidelines and eliminated the word "Web unit" in
>favor of "Web page." We have defined "Web page"as follows (see
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#webpagedef ):
>
>Web page
>
>    a resource that is referenced by a URI and is not embedded in
>another resource, plus any other resources that are used in the
>rendering or intended to be rendered together with it
>
>    Note: Although any "other resources" would be rendered together
>with the primary resource, they would not necessarily be rendered
>simultaneously with each other.
>
>    Example 1: When you enter http://shopping.example.com/ in your
>browser you enter a movie-like interactive shopping environment where
>you visually move about a store dragging products off of the shelves
>around you into a visual shopping cart in front of you. Clicking on a
>product causes it to be demonstrated with a specification sheet
>floating alongside.
>
>    Example 2: A Web resource including all embedded images and media.
>
>    Example 3: A Web mail program built using Asynchronous JavaScript
>and XML (AJAX). The program lives entirely at http://mail.example.com,
>but includes an inbox, a contacts area and a calendar. Links or
>buttons are provided that cause the the inbox, contacts, or calendar
>to display, but do not change the URL of the page as a whole.
>
>    Example 4: A customizable portal site, where users can choose
>content to display from a set of different content modules.
>
>To answer your questions:
>
>According to our definition.
>
>#1 -   They are all the same Web page because they are all the same
>primary resource with different secondary resources rendered with
>them.
>
>#2 Again they are all the same Web page including all the nested
>versions.   The secondary resources do not need to be rendered
>simultaneously with each other, only with the primary, to be part of
>the same Web page.
>
>Regarding your concern #3, the definition of Web page is purposefully
>written to include dynamic content that comes from the same URI.  So
>all of the content from all the variations would be part of the web
>page. If the contents of the frames can be loaded separately as well,
>then they would also be separate Web pages as well. But they would
>still be part of the frame Web page.
>
>#4  If the different mime type would cause a different PRIMARY
>resource to be loaded, then they would be different Web pages.   If
>you included that URI in your claim, all Web pages from that URI would
>have to be conform (meet the success criterion or have a mechanism to
>obtain a page with the same content that did).

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 8:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060817172637.5E1A8D7830@saba.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
>(Issue ID: LC-1471)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: editorial
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>While translating the guidelines into Dutch
>(http://purl.org/NET/error404/xp/wcag20/WD-WCAG20-20060427/guidelines.html)
>I ran into the following problem: \"legal\" (in SC 2.5.3) can be
>translated into Dutch as:
>- \"wettig\" (compliant with the law, as opposed to \"illegal\", or
>- \"wettelijk\" (described in law).
>I picked the second meaning, but it would be clearer if the SC said:
>\"commitments recognized by the law\" or \"legal commitments\" instead
>of \"legal transactions\".
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Reword SC 2.5.3 from \"For forms that cause legal or financial
>transactions to occur ...\" to \"For forms that cause legal
>commitments or financial transactions to occur ...\" or to \"For forms
>that cause commitments recognized by the law, that cuase financial
>transactions to occur ...\".
>
>Alternatively/additionally, clarify \"legal transaction\" (or the
>substituted term) in HtM 2.5.3, with something like:
>\"Legal transactions are transactions where the person incurs a
>legally binding obligation or benefit (a marriage license, a stock
>trade (financial and legal), a will, a loan, adoption, signing up for
>the army, a contract of any type, etcetera).\" (And thank Gregg for
>the proposed wording.)
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have revised the success criterion to read, "For forms that cause
>legal commitments or financial transactions to occur, that modify or
>delete user-controllable data in data storage systems, or that submit
>test responses, at least one of the following is true..." We have also
>added a definition for legal committments.

Thank you. This is much clearer now. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 9:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060921130058.738FC66364@dolph.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1517)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: general comment
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>If a conformance claim is made for http://example.com/, does this
>include subdomains like http://www.example.com/,
>http://lists.example.com/ and http://cvs.example.com/?
>I would assume that they are all covered, unless some of them are
>explicitly excluded. This approach would be in line with RDF Content
>Labels [http://www.w3.org/2004/12/q/doc/content-labels-schema.htm] and
>URI Pattern Matching by the Web Content Labels Incubator Group
>[http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/wcl/matching.html].
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Add the following to item 6 of \"Required components of a conformance claim\":
>\"If only the URI of a host (e.g. http://example.com) is given without
>specifying subdomains, all subdomains (e.g. http://www.example.com/
>and http://lists.example.com) are assumed to be covered, unless some
>subdomains are explicitly excluded.\"
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have clarified item 4 under "Required components of conformance claim:"
>
>A description of the URIs that the claim is being made for, including
>whether subdomains are included in the claim.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 10:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060929044426.E940947BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1518)
>
>Part of Item: Resources
>Comment Type: general comment
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>A few links are outdated; a few can be added.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>* Remove \'Search Engine World HTML Validation 
>Service\' (no longer available).
>* Remove \'XSD Schema Validator by GotDotNet\' (no longer available).
>* Remove \'This article is also available as a 
>single file: Working with XML.\'
>* Change http://www.nvu.com/index.html to http://www.nvu.com/
>* Add \'Off-line CSS Validator  A clipbook for NoteTab\'
>(http://www.tuke.sk/podlubny/oc.html)
>* Add \'Schema Validator\'
>(http://www.xmlforasp.net/SchemaValidator.aspx): this is a validator
>that allows you to paste XML and W3C XML Schema code into text boxes
>to validate XML code.
>* Add \'XML Nanny\' (http://www.xmlnanny.com/), a graphical tool for
>validating XML and XHTML, with support for DTD, W3C XML Schema, RELAX
>NG and Schematron (Max OX X).
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>Thanks. The additions/deletions have been implemented as proposed.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 11:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060929045744.5AF6547BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1519)
>
>Part of Item: Examples
>Comment Type: editorial
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>In example 3, the double backslash in the dir attribute (and the
>explanation above it) should be a single forward slash.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Replace dev\\\\web (double backslash) with dev/web (single forward slash).
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>Done.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 12:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20061206121619.BA535BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1535)
>
>Part of Item: Intent
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>Please clarify how one would determine the reading ability required by
>a multilingual Web unit or page, for example an English text with long
>quotes in French.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>One could consider the following approach: for each language that
>constitutes at least 5% of the content and that is used in full
>sentences or paragraphs (not just individual words or phrases),
>determine the reading ability required by the content in that
>language. Compare the scores for each language and use the \"worst\"
>score as the readability score for the whole Web unit or page.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have added the following paragraph to the Intent section of How to
>Meet 3.1.5:
>
>When a web page contains multiple languages, a readability result
>should be calculated for each language that constitutes at least 5% of
>the content and that is used in full sentences or paragraphs (not just
>individual words or phrases). The overall readability of the page
>should be judged on the language that yields the worst readability
>results.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 13:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20061206120019.2EE54BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1536)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>Should the baseline also identify the human or natural languages that
>the content covered by the conformance claim relies upon?
>The rationale for this is twofold.
>1. Success criteria 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 require language markup,
>especially for the benefit of users of speech synthesis and/or
>braille, but this language markup is of little benefit if the
>languages are not supported by, for example, the user\'s speech
>synthesis software.
>2. Success criterion 3.1.5 requires supplemental content if text
>requires a reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary
>education level, but the algorithms or methods to determine the
>required reading ability are language-specific. (Similarly, the
>techniques you use to conform to WCAG depend on the technologies in
>your baseline.)
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Consider adding the human languages that the content relies upon to
>the baseline. (This would imply a distinction between \"baseline
>technologies\", i.e. the current baseline concept, and \"baseline
>human languages\".)
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The
>term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web
>technologies". The issue of what it means to be an
>accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section
>"Accessibility Support of Web Technologies" at
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support .
>
>In analyzing whether a technology is accessibility supported, language
>support can and should be taken into account. This would be reflected
>in the documentation for the accessibility support including the
>language support of the various assistive technologies used in the
>analysis/report.

Thank you. I am satisfied with this decision.

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 08:52:11 UTC

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