Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)

Dear WCAG WG participants:

Thank you for your replies on our comments on the 2006 Last Call Working 
Draft of WCAG 2.0. In general EOWG feels that the May 2007 draft is much 
improved.

We accept all your resolutions except #12 and #26. Our specific responses 
are below.

Please let us know if you have any questions on our responses.

Many thanks,

- Judy Brewer, on behalf of the Education and Outreach Working Group.


>Comment 1:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215340.6AFF4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-988)
ACCEPT

Comment 2:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215712.6C60DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-989)
ACCEPT

>Comment 3:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622220019.9A084BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-990)
ACCEPT

>Comment 4:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622221000.50F0FBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-991)
ACCEPT

>Comment 5:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622223644.5BE6866364@dolph.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-993)
ACCEPT

>Comment 6:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623015205.CA1F647BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-994)
ACCEPT

>Comment 7:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020038.4285C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-995)
ACCEPT

>Comment 8:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020602.D5AB747BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-996)
ACCEPT

>Comment 9:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023212.54ED733201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-997)
ACCEPT

>Comment 10:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023433.A625F33201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-998)
ACCEPT

>Comment 11:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024606.035F8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-999)
ACCEPT

>Comment 12:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024721.819AEDAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1001)
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>The definition for assistive technology is difficult to understand
>because it gives the restrictive before the general meaning; also, it
>may be too restrictive, in describing legacy assistive technologies
>(for instance, some screen readers now are creating their own DOM
>separate from the mainstream browser).
>Proposed Change:
>EOWG recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition. (Note: We
>think that this would work *because* your definition of user agent is
>broad enough to already cover some of the functions of some assistive
>technologies.)
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>We have changed the order of the items in the definition to make the
>restriction less confusing. We feel it is important to keep the
>restriction that assistive technology depends on a host user agent so
>that the success criteria require support for external assistive
>technology and can't just be satisfied by mechanisms that are internal
>to the user agent. However, we have added a note that host user agents
>may provide direct support for users with disabilities.

NOT ACCEPTED.

The revised definition is as difficult to understand as the original. The 
explanation "user agents are user agents in the general sense" does not 
help comprehension. Also, if the second paragraph of the definition is 
retained, it should become a note.

Please consider using the following definition instead:

         "...a user agent that translates web content into a format that is 
perceivable, operable and understandable for individuals with disabilities 
is called an assistive technology. Assistive technologies for Web content 
rely on services such as retrieving, parsing and analyzing Web content that 
are often provided by mainstream user agents or operating systems."

In addition, please consider using the following as a replacement for Note 2:

         "The distinction between mainstream user agents and assistive 
technologies is real but not absolute. Most mainstream user agents provide 
some features listed above to assist individuals with disabilities. The 
basic difference is that mainstream user agents target broad and diverse 
audiences that usually include people with and without disabilities. 
Assistive technologies target narrowly defined populations of users with 
specific disabilities. The assistance provided by an assistive technology 
is more specific and appropriate to the needs of its target users."

In addition, we would like to submit suggestions for edits to the examples 
which follow this definition, but are still working on those.

>Comment 13:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030816.BDC9933201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1002)
ACCEPT

>Comment 14:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030938.87E46DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1003)
ACCEPT

At 04:38 PM 5/17/2007 -0700, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>Comment 15:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031108.30032DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1004)
ACCEPT

>Comment 16:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031328.228B2DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1005)
ACCEPT

>Comment 17:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031552.326C5DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1006)
ACCEPT

>Comment 18:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623033122.A9E7E33201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1007)
ACCEPT

>Comment 19:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034120.985C247BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1008)
ACCEPT

>Comment 20:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034355.22F2C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1009)
ACCEPT

>Comment 21:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034521.475D847BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1010)
ACCEPT

>Comment 22:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034741.C9E7647BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1012)
ACCEPT

>Comment 23:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623035437.DCE6447BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1013)
ACCEPT

>Comment 24:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623043917.B202DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1016)
ACCEPT

>Comment 25:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044024.952B7BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1017)
ACCEPT

>Comment 26:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044126.B0D75BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1018)
>Part of Item: Intent
>Comment Type: editorial
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word
>summary, rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as
>\"shortname\".
>Proposed Change:
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>We have included short handles in the draft to make the success
>criterion easier to reference.

NOT ACCEPTED:

Thank you for including handles in the success criteria, but we had also 
recommended them for the guidelines themselves.

>Comment 27:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044216.4EC33BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1019)

ACCEPTED.


-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Saturday, 30 June 2007 01:03:22 UTC