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

LC-1309 SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:06:24 +0200
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ttq7syu5wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Fri, 18 May 2007 01:28:47 +0200, Loretta Guarino Reid  
<lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 5:
>
> Source:  
> http://www.w3.org/mid/op.tbjxeqrswxe0ny@researchsft.myhome.westell.com
> (Issue ID: LC-1309)
>
> The guidelines place in level 3 very many of the requirements necessary  
> to help people with cognitive and reading disabilities access the web.
> Since only 50% of level 3 requirements (as chosen by content authors)
> need to be met in order to claim confomance to the guidelines, it is
> quite possible to conform to the guidelines at triple-A level while
> doing very little (and clearly not enough) to address the needs of
> these user groups.
>
> I propose either that this be explicitly and clearly explained in the
> introductory and conformance sections, or that the levels system be
> reworked as per my lat call comment on them.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have changed the definition of Triple-A conformance so that all
> level AAA success criteria must be satisfied.
>
> We have added language to the Introduction, the Conformance section,
> and the Quick Reference to highlight the fact that WCAG 2 only
> addresses some of the needs of people with cognitive, learning, and
> language disabilities, and to call out the need for more research in
> this area. WAI is exploring ways in which to support and encourage
> work in this important area.
>
> In addition, we have added some best practices for cognitive,
> learning, and language disabilities as advisory techniques, and we
> have proposed 3 new success criteria in this area.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------

While it is a shame that the guidelines do not cover such an important  
group, I recognise that including advisory techniqes is a big step  
forward. Removing the ability to claim conformance based on meeting  
arbitrarily selected criteria, while ignoring others, satisfies the  
initial comment - thank you.

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com  Catch up: Speed Dial  http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 11:06:36 UTC

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