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

Re: Comment LC-1020

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 07:21:05 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0706240721u6e377a8et422ed0eb881a78a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gian Sampson-Wild" <gian@tkh.com.au>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Thanks, Gian. Because WCAG has returned to Public Working Draft
status, the next step in the W3C Process[1] would be release of a Last
Call Working Draft.


1. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/intro.html#Intro

On 6/24/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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 14:21:21 UTC

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