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

LC-1214 accept with comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:53:19 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110414c2a21ded2f3f@[10.0.1.2]>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

At 4:27 PM -0700 17 05 2007, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 45:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/p06110403c0bf326d6713@[10.0.1.5]
>(Issue ID: LC-1214)
>
>What is a process in terms of WCAG conformance is unenforceably vague,
>and at least in terms of the first example given, unfairly narrow.
>
>Shopping generally progresses through browse, select, and checkout
>phases.  Only the checkout is a rigidly serialized process.  And on
>some sites you can get live assistance by which you could place your
>order by chat.  So using a whole shopping site as an example of a
>'process' which is subject to an "all or none" accessibility rule is
>unduly severe.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Include an accounting for equivalent facilitation separate from the
>individual testable hypotheses and integrated into the rollup of
>conformance assessment.  (see next)
>
>You might want to remark that it's not cool for a shopping site to
>claim conformance for a subset of the site that doesn't let people
>complete a purchase.  But don't try to fold that policy value
>judgement into a W3C technical report.  Let the latter be technical.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have included two provisions in the rewritten conformance section
>to deal with these issues.
>
>4.) Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the
>success criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
>alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
>derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
>meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
>alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
>original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
>pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conformant
>versions are required for each language offered.

This is good.  We need to get it better reflected in the statement of
1.1.1 and 2.4.6.

>
>
>9.) Complete processes: If a Web page that is part of a process does
>not conform at some level, then no conformance claim is made at that
>level for any Web pages in that process.
>
>Example: An online store has a series of pages that are used to select
>and purchase products. All pages in the series from start to finish
>(checkout) must conform in order to claim conformance for any page
>that is part of the sequence.
>
>We have also added the following definition for "process."
>
>process
>
>    series of user actions where each action is required in order to
>complete an activity
>
>    Example 1: A series of Web pages on a shopping site requires users
>to view alternative products and prices, select products, submit an
>order, provide shipping information and provide payment information.
>
>    Example 2: An account registration page requires successful
>completion of a Turing test before the registration form can be
>accessed.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------

This description is a little narrower than the full range of cases where
the claims should include multiple pages atomically (all or none) but
this is a reasonable concession to understandability in this case.
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 00:53:34 UTC

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