EOWG new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May 2007 Working Draft

The following comments from EOWG on the 17 May 2007 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft 
are from EOWG discussions on 8, 15, 22 and 29 June. Where possible we have 
been specific in our suggestions, but otherwise we have tried to describe 
particular concerns. We have also indicated several places where we may 
send additional editorial feedback.

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

Regards,

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


1. [conformance section] EOWG feels that the goal for the section on 
accessibility supported technologies should be that the average developer 
should be able to read the section and understand the concept; understand 
the importance of the concept; and understand that one should be able to go 
to a list of accessibility supported technologies.

2. [conformance section] Explain clearly & simply, as part of the 
introductory paragraph, that some technologies support assistive 
technologies, and that these are the ones that one should use.

3. [conformance section] In the first paragraph of "accessibility support 
of web technologies" please add "Web" in front of the two uses of 
"technologies" that do not currently have any other descriptor, so as to 
clearly separate reference to the authors' (Web) technologies from 
reference to the users (assistive) technologies. We suggest that this 
differentiation be checked throughout the document.

4. [conformance section] Please present the reader with a short description 
of what accessibility supported technologies are, before telling when/where 
they need to be used, and that the author must use them. Right now the 
definition is doubly embedded in two other concepts in the intro paragraph.

5. [conformance section] Take the sentence about what this section covers 
and put it at the very beginning of the section; then give the short 
version of what conformance means; then say it's normative; then make sure 
that the promised sequence matches the actual sequence.

6. [conformance requirements] EOWG may have further clarification questions 
for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this section, but 
does not have our editorial suggestions ready at this time. Our questions 
include whether there may be unnecessary redundancies in requirements 5 and 
6, or whether any of that content might potentially belong in the 
guidelines themselves.

7. [principle 1] "'Perceivable'" is neither explained nor defined here, nor 
is there a link to an explanation or a definition. Where it is first used 
in the introduction, the explanation is brief, and is not linked to the 
expanded explanation in the "Understanding" document. Please explain, or 
define, or link to such information.

8. [reference] The current draft uses inconsistent terminology for 
conformance levels (see the intro, then the conformance referencing 
section). Please synchronize terminology.

9. [referencing: support documents] This section needs simplification and 
copyediting to clarify the meaning and eliminate redundancies; also, it 
should be included in the supporting documents.

10. [referencing] Add "or must" after "shall."

11. [referencing] After "this is informative," add "Please note that the 
following language for referencing WCAG 2.0 can be inserted into your own 
documents."

12. [referencing] If maintaining that all of Level 3 should not be 
required, a better explanation is needed for why this is so.

13. [referencing] Please simplify "That is, it is possible to require 'all 
of Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and Level 
3]' be met" by turning it into an example, e.g.: "For example, 'all of 
Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and Level 3].'"

14. [referencing] The 4th subprovision under the "shall" section 
contradicts the third example, in that it implies that one can require 
conformance to all Level 3 success criteria.

15. [intro to referencing section] EOWG may have further clarification 
questions for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this 
section, but does not have our specific editorial suggestions ready at this 
time.

16. [SC 1.1.1] Consider flipping the existing sentence to: "If non-text 
content is any of the following, then text alternatives at least identify 
the non-text content with a descriptive text label: multimedia, live 
audio-only or live video-only content, a test or exercise that must be 
presented in non-text format, or primarily intended to create a specific 
sensory experience."

17. [guideline 2] The difference between 2.2.2 (blinking) and 2.3.1 
(flashing) is not clear even with the links to definitions, as the 
definitions are mutually self-referencing and seem just like different 
degrees of the same thing. Either differentiate more in the SC themselves, 
or combine them.

18. [SC 1.2.1] Replace "multimedia alternative to text" with "audio and/or 
video alternative to text" since it is possible to gloss text w/ audio 
only, or w/ silent video only (for instance, sign language) or w/ audio & 
video together (e.g. video of talking head).

19. [SC 1.3.1] Most of us had no idea what this meant, and the few who did 
had difficulty explaining what the practical implications of this would be 
for content development. Do you mean "semantics conveyed through 
presentation?" Or is it the semantics about the relation between objects? 
Either one of these, or both, would be more understandable.

20. [SC 2.4.2] Do you mean the title tag or the title that goes in the H1? 
Please clarify (even if in some non-HTML specific way).

21. [SC 3.1.4] We debated this but could not agree on a common 
interpretation. Please clarify.

22. [gloss-assistivetech] Drop note 1.




-- 
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 02:19:17 UTC