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

disagree LC-1196 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:04:18 -0400
Message-Id: <p0611040fc2a212dc9747@[]>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

At 4:27 PM -0700 17 05 2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>Comment 27:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110403c0bf326d6713@[]
>(Issue ID: LC-1196)
>Sub-case 1 is by definition not applicable.  If the action is
>reversable, then the user action does not cause i.e. commit to the
>Sub-case 2 is insufficient.  Having the system check for a subset of
>the system's concerns is in no way an indication of the user's
>informed consent to commit the transaction.
>Sub-case 3 is the requirement.
>Proposed Change:
>Eliminate OR and leave the "opportunity to review" provision only.
>Make a note that if the transaction is reversible then the review is
>required before the subsequent commit transaction, but that this test
>is not required at the interim step.
>Response from Working Group:
>To address your concern with the first bullet we have updated it to
>require that transactions are reversible rather than actions. The
>working group believes that the second bullet is important for
>complicated transactions where it might not be appropriate to review
>all data in the final step and thus has retained that option. We have
>updated the wording of the second bullet.  The third bullet has been
>rewritten to make it clear that the user has the opportunity to review
>the results being submitted before confirming the transaction.
>We have revised the list in this section as follows:
>   1. Transactions are reversible.
>   2. Submitted data is checked for input errors before going on to
>the next step in the process.
>   3. A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and
>correcting information before finalizing the transaction.

Reference in new draft:

Reply from commentor:

This is better.  You have removed my objection to point 1.

But 2. is no substitute for 1. or 3. Even if the system does 2. it
needs to afford 3. at the last step or 1. afterwards. The error
checking by the system does not confirm that the data reflects the
user's intent. Consider all the wrong-word errors that slip through
spell checking.

Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 00:04:30 UTC

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