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

Comment LC-1020

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:01:00 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01c7b65f$b8e3e580$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1020)

Issues with commenting - It is difficult to accurately comment on WCAG2 when
the documents that are needed to understand WCAG2 are not normative and are
not complete. For example, one cannot interpret a SC without referring to
techniques, yet these are not normative. There has been a lot of people
saying WCAG2 is difficult to understand, yet they cannot rely on the UW or
TD documents as these are neither normative or complete. The WG could vote
to significantly change these documents, thereby significantly changing the
meaning of particular success criteria, without ever allowing comments from
the public. In a perfect world neither the UW or TD documents would be
required in order to understand WCAG2 but taking into account the difficulty
most people are having with interpreting WCAG2, these documents are becoming
mandatory reading.

Proposed Change:

Allow for a subsequent 'Last Call' when all documents are complete, and
specify that WCAG2 must be read and interpreted in conjunction with UW and
TD documents

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

In order to be technology neutral but accurate and testable the guidelines
themselves need to be written in language that sometimes can be abstract or
technical.  We recognize that this can make them difficult to understand. We
have spent much time trying to figure out how to make them as simple to
understand as possible while keeping them accurate and clear.  We have also
been very careful to be sure that the guidelines themselves contain what is
required. Information in the non-normative documents can never require
anything that is not already required by the language in the normative
document.  Thus the guidelines can stand on their own in terms of
'interpretability'. However we have also created extensive support
documentation to help make them easier to understand and to include examples
and specific techniques for meeting them.

The Understanding WCAG documents and techniques documents will continue to
evolve because technologies and user agent support continue to evolve, so
that new sufficient techniques can emerge as assistive technology and other
user agent support improves over time. It is important that these documents
remain non-normative so that they can be changed as our collective knowledge
grows.

It is very useful to read the ancillary documents to better understand the
document. The ancillary materials may aid comprehension but are not in fact
normative. The ancillary materials have been filled in since the time of the
comment, and while not fully complete, are being republished at the same
time in order to provide non-normative explanatory information to aid
comprehension.


----------------------------
Response from GSW:
----------------------------
My comment still stands however I am happy to close this issue if the
Working Group releases another Last Call document once they have taken into
account the comments engendered from this (2007) WD.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 13:01:16 UTC

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