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

Eric Hansen comments on WCAG 2

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ETS.ORG>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:58:33 -0400
Message-ID: <404EE2EE73FEE7489A101E7256B5CD9F030D9ABC@rosnt108.etslan.org>
To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
The document is much improved from the last time I reviewed it. A lot of great work has gone into this.

I am attaching a Word document in which I have made a lot of small edits and suggestions. Wherever possible, I have provided specific suggested language.

The main other thing that I would like to call out is the early correspondence related to sign language and language, including comments from Ruth Loew. I have nothing more to add except to say except that I think that the working group should address the issues documented there.

Following are a few other thoughts for your consideration. They are mostly issues regarding which I do not have a clear idea of what to recommend.

A. Processes. I am not sure what to make of the "complete processes" requirement. Is it correct that to reach a certain level of conformance, all of the following must be true:

		1. All Pages Must Conform. All primary content pages specified via URIs in claim must conform (though resources for primary or alternate versions may use resources that go beyond the URIs in the claim).

		2. No Page May Be Part of a Process That Includes a Non-Conforming Page. No primary (or it is primary and alternate version) content page may be part of a process that has a nonconforming page.

I could be mistaken but I think that the document may not be specific about the locations of alternative versions (point 1). Also, I not sure that point 2 is made clearly enough. I am not sure I see any guidelines or success criteria that enforce or clarify the conformance requirement of point 2. I am not sure at this time whether it is practical or necessary to do more than you have done, but I am also uncomfortable with some vagueness about the scope of things that would be considered processes.

B. URIs and alternate version and supplemental content. I presume that the URIs in the claim pertain essentially to primary content. Is it the case that other URIs (not the claim) might be accessed for alternate versions or even supplemental content? I wonder if the location of supplemental content must be accessed with the URIs in the claim.

C. Kinds of User Agents. The document may benefit from better distinguishing between assistive technologies and host or base user agents. Sometimes the usage gets a little muddy. At one point the document refers user agents and assistive technologies while it seems to me that it should have said assistive technologies and other user agents.

D. Users. The document is oriented around "users" but never makes explicit the characteristics that of that group. Therefore, if a web site had users that had no disabilities, then would the actual number and variety of accessibility features that WCAG 2 requires be substantially less than for a web site with users with a wide range of disabilities. 


--------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information.
It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly.
If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute,
or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from
your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.
--------------------------------------------------



Received on Saturday, 30 June 2007 04:00:59 UTC

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