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

LC-1308 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 13:06:23 +0200
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ttq7sxjewxe0ny@widsith.local>

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

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4:
>
> Source:  
> http://www.w3.org/mid/op.tbjxeubjwxe0ny@researchsft.myhome.westell.com
> (Issue ID: LC-1308)
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0169.html
>
> In the current framework, while there are success criteria there are no
> normative explanations of how they apply to given technologies. Instead,
> understanding WCAG 2.0 has been made an informative document.
>
> This is inappropriate to ensure interoperability of tools and content.
> This has been a major problem with the implementation of WCAG 1.0, where
> important questions of interpretation (such as "are tables OK for
> layout?", "do all user agents identify form fields without default text  
> in them?", "is it OK to rely on javascript?", "are px units OK for
> layout?" among others) have gone unanswered for many years leading to a
> major breakdown in interoperability between tools, services, and content  
> itself.
>
> I propose that the information be made available in a normative document.
> The process requirements for publishing such a document would seem to be
> very lightweight in the context of how long it takes the WCAG group to
> determine necessary changes, and this will at least ensure that an
> authorative answer becomes available for issues which arise.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> It has been challenging to write success criteria that are technology
> neutral, testable, and easy to understand. We have taken great pains
> to write the success criteria so that it would be clear which
> techniques would or would not pass to experts. We are using the
> Understanding document to make it clear for those who are not experts.
> However, we don't want to restrict the range of solutions by making
> the list of known solutions normative. We do not believe that we could
> update normative Understanding and Technique documents quickly enough
> to keep pace with the changes in technologies and user agents. The W3C
> process is long for any document.
>
> This approach also allows WCAG 2.0 to avoid introducing some of the
> "until user agent" problems from WCAG 1.0.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------

I disagree that it is not feasible to produce normative documents at W3C  
in a reasonable timeframe. However, in general I accept that it should be  
possible to use the success criteria as written to determine whether they  
have been met, and that the informative document providing additional  
information is merely further guidance that represents as much as the  
working group may or may not know about the topic in question.

I am satisfied that the working group's approach is reasonable, and  
consider the issue resolved. If there are specific instances of success  
criteria that need to be clarified, I assume that those should be raised  
against the criterion in question rather than the overall structure of the  
document.

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