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

disagree LC-1195 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:52:30 -0400
Message-Id: <p0611040ec2a20f83ce63@[10.0.1.2]>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

At 4:27 PM -0700 17 05 2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 26:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110403c0bf326d6713@[10.0.1.5]
>(Issue ID: LC-1195)

OLD WCAG2 ref:

New WCAG2 ref:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#minimize-error-suggestions

>Clause is trivially vague.  It will either be satisfied or be
>inapplicable, because there is no objective standard for when the
>"and..." condition is met.
>
>This provision is general good usability practice.
>
>The suggestions usually come from the browser's memory of user's
>response to similar questions in other content.  Hence is not a
>content requirement, but a user experience desideratum which may be
>satisfied by user's automation or the data received from the author's
>automation.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>move to informative annex noting good usability practices that are
>especially appreciated in the PWD Web experience.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We do not agree that the clause is trivially vague. We agree that this
>provision is good general usability practice, however, we feel that
>this is an accessibility issue because of its disproportionate impact
>on users who have cognitive disabilities that impair problem solving.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------

Reply from commentor:

OK, 'trivially vague' is too technical language.

Putting this suggestion in the document is non-trivial.  It is a good
idea.

But the success criterion as stated is not testable.  It is "unenforceably
vague."

This is because there is not way to determine without the user's error
whether the application knows an appropriate suggestion to make
as correction.

Nobody can ever fail this criterion, because it is un-testable to show
that they should have known what to suggest.

I admit that I don't know what to do on this point.  The SC fails your
self-imposed requirement of testability.  Rating this at AA is dubious
in the sense that in can never fail.

But in the spirit of the "common sense suggestions" for MMI applications,
it is a common-sense suggestion worth mentioning that may be of
particular value if you happen to be a PWD.
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 23:52:48 UTC

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