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: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:51:07 -0700
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Message-ID: <web-13553262@remus.csulb.edu>

I have read the comments and find the 
responses acceptable.  Even though you 
did address the issue of ordering the 
Assistive Technology points, the 
definition is still ambiguous and 
actually incorrect.  The pair of 
points (1) and (2) are stated as both 
being required, but (2) begins with 
"Usually", an odd start for an 
obligatory item as indicated by the 
lead "both".

On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:45:21 -0700
  "Loretta Guarino Reid" 
<lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> Dear Wayne Dick ,
> 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 
> This message contains the comments 
>you submitted and the resolutions
> to your comments. Each comment 
>includes a link to the archived copy 
> 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 
> 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 
> Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff 
> On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1:
> Source: 
> (Issue ID: LC-604)
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: TE
> Comment (including rationale for 
>proposed change):
> Rationale:  In my experience, simple 
>magnification is not very helpful
> for reading web pages.  Visual 
>readers with print disabilities 
> need more.  Now, lots of software 
>labeled \"screen magnifier\" does
> more than magnify, but some products 
>just zoom and that is not very
> helpful. In the WCAG 2.0 Glossary 
>definition of Assistive Technology,
> the example of screen magnifier is 
>the only remedy given for
> individuals with partial sight. 
> There are no examples, other than
> screen readers, given for other 
>print disabled readers who are
> sighted.  I am afraid that 
>developers who want to test WCAG 2.0
> compliance will test against screen 
>magnifiers (especially simple zoom
> magnifiers) and conclude they have 
>met the needs of sighted users with
> print disabilities.  The example 
>does mention change in color, but
> there are many other style changes 
>that assist visual reading.  Also,
> motor limitations cause some print 
>disability rather than the more
> common conditions, dyslexia or 
>partial sight.  So I suggest the
> following example.  Note: I had no 
>word for this type of technology so
> I just coined \"Visual Reading 
>Assistants\".  Examples of visual
> reading assistant products are: 
>specialized style sheets, IBM\'s
> WebAdapt2Me and Home Page Reader and 
>WYNN from Freedom Scientific.  I
> talked to Phill Jenkins from IBM and 
>he suggested \"Reading Assistive
> Technology\".  That\'s good but 
>might seem circular in the definition
> of assistive technology.  There is a 
>significant needs difference
> between readers with sight who have 
>print disabilities and readers
> without sight.  While screen readers 
>work for both, sighted readers
> are never trained in Braille so 
>visually accessible text represents
> the only static medium available for 
>sighted readers with print
> disabilities.  A static reading 
>medium is necessary for serious
> literature that requires deep 
>concentration.  A non-aural medium is
> also necessary for deaf readers with 
>print disabilities.  Zoom
> technology does not comes close to 
>addressing this need, so I don\'t
> want developers coming away with the 
>impression that screen magnifiers
> solve the problem for this 
> Proposed Change:
> Change to definition -- Assistive 
>Technology... Example...
> Visual Reading Assistants - Several 
>products modify the document
> styles such as font size and color, 
>spacing of lines, letters and
> words, and the font family.  These 
>products may also synchronize
> speech with text, reflow large text 
>to fit the page and add keyboard
> navigations.  They are used by print 
>disabled readers who are sighted
> but who cannot read standard print 
>formats owing to a variety of
> visual, perceptual or motor 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> We have revised the bullet on screen 
>magnifiers in the definition of
> assistive technology to:
> "screen magnifiers and other visual 
>reading assistants, which are used
> by people with visual, perceptual 
>and physical print disabilities to
> change text font, size, spacing, 
>color, synchronization with speech,
> etc in order to improve the visual 
>readability of rendered text and
> images;"
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2:
> Source: 
> (Issue ID: LC-714)
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: GE
> Comment (including rationale for 
>proposed change):
> Rationale: In the term 
>programmatically determined, the 
>concept of
> total determinism is not clear 
>enough.  There needs to be a clear
> difference between programmatically 
>determined (recognized by a
> deterministic algorithm) and 
>non-deterministically accessed by an 
> heuristic --as in optical character 
> Proposed Change:
> Change:  In Introduction: Important 
>New Terms Used in WCAG 2.0
> Add to the description of 
>programmatically determined…\"This 
> that the author is responsible for 
>ensuring that the content is
> delivered in such a way that 
>software can access it [with no 
>chance of
> error]\".  You could also say 
>positively… [with perfect accuracy].
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> We have clarified the meaning of 
>"programatically determined" in the
> section on Important New Terms Used 
>in WCAG 2.0. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#new-terms 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3:
> Source: 
> (Issue ID: LC-715)
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: TE
> Comment (including rationale for 
>proposed change):
> Rationale:  Often the \"variation in 
>text\" can be determined
> programmatically but the information 
>this variation conveys cannot.
> Proposed Change:
> Change: Include the bracketed words…
> 1.3.4 Information that is conveyed 
>by variations in presentation of
> text is also conveyed in text, or 
>[the information conveyed by] the
> variations in presentation of text 
>can be programmatically determined.
> [How to meet 1.3.4]
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> SC 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 have been 
>combined to read "Information and
> relationships conveyed through 
>presentation can be programmatically
> determined or are available in text, 
>and notification of changes to
> these is available to user agents, 
>including assistive technologies."
> This wording ensures that it is the 
>meaning conveyed by the
> presentation that must be 
>programmatically determined, and 
>allows the
> author to indicate the meaning in 
>text if it is not feasible to do so
> programmatically. The How to Meet 
>document describes this in some
> detail.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4:
> Source: 
> (Issue ID: LC-716)
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: QU
> Comment (including rationale for 
>proposed change):
> The section of the Principle 4 is 
>most confusing.  Throughout success
> criteria  for 4.2 there references 
>by link to earlier success critera
> the linking language is so terse 
>that it is hard to follow.
> Proposed Change:
> Go through the entire section and 
>add more descriptive language than
> in the earlier principles.  This is 
>4 is trickier.  In most of the
> document keeping things short is 
>good, but in 4 the cross referencing
> makes it hard to interpret what is 
>being said.
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> To make this easier to understand, 
>we have moved the former success
> criteria for 4.2 into the 
>conformance section.
> Conformance requirement 4 addresses 
>conditions that must be satisfied
> when multiple versions of content 
>are provided. There may be multiple
> versions because the author wishes 
>to provide a version that uses
> technologies that are not 
>accessibility supported, or because 
> are provided that are tailored for 
>supporting people with particular
> disabilities.  Conformance 
>requirement 6 describes the 
> necessary to keep the alternate 
>versions from interfering with the
> user's ability to access the 
>conforming version of the content.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 5:
> Source: 
> (Issue ID: LC-732)
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: GE
> Comment (including rationale for 
>proposed change):
> I found the definition of Assistive 
> Technology a little unclear.  The
> concept of retrieving data from host 
> agents is difficult.  Maybe the
> attached wording could help.
> Assistive technology (in the context 
>of this document)
>    a user agent that:
> 1. provides services beyond those 
>offered by the host user agents to
> meet the requirements of users with 
>disabilities. Additional services
> include alternative renderings 
>(e.g., as synthesized speech or
> magnified content), alternative 
>input methods (e.g., voice),
> additional navigation or orientation 
>mechanisms, and content
> transformations (e.g., to make 
>tables more accessible).
> 2.relies on services provided by one 
>or more other \"host\" user
> agents. Assistive technologies 
>communicate data and messages with 
> user agents by using and 
> Note: In this definition the host 
>user agents are user agents in the
> general sense of the term. The 
>output of host user agents may not be
> easily read by any humans, but it 
>may provide important services to
> assistive technologies like 
>retrieving Web content from program
> objects or parsing markup into 
>identifiable bundles.
> Example: Examples of assistive 
>technologies that are important in 
> context of this document include the 
> * screen magnifiers, which are used 
>by people with visual disabilities
> to enlarge and change colors on the 
>screen to improve the visual
> readability of rendered text and 
> * screen readers, which are used by 
>people who are blind or have
> reading disabilities to read textual 
>information through synthesized
> speech or braille displays;
> * voice recognition software, which 
>may be used by people who have
> some physical disabilities;
> * alternative keyboards, which are 
>used by people with certain
> physical disabilities to simulate 
>the keyboard;
> * alternative pointing devices, 
>which are used by people with certain
> physical disabilities to simulate 
>mouse pointing and button
> activations.
> Note: This definition is based on 
>User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
> 1.0 Glossary
> Proposed Change:
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> Thank you for the suggestions for 
>how to improve the definition of
> Assistive Technology. We have 
>modified the definition based on your
> suggestions.

Wayne Dick PhD
Chair Computer Engineering and 
Computer Science, CSU, Long Beach
Coordinator of Academic Technology 
Accessibility, CSU System
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 17:51:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC