1.1. Non-text Content / Controls-Input
1.4.3 & 1.4.5 Contrast ratio of disabled elements
2.1.1 and 2.1.2 don\'t seem to have a clear distinction
2.1.1. trying to cover two separate issues in one go?
2.4.8 is not clearly differentiated from 2.4.4
3.1.4 SC should be AA
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Content in two languages
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: dc:lang
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Lang value length
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Liam's resources
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Missing xml:lang
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: No pointer to i18n language decl doc
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Non-English resources please
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Primary natural language
[UND WCAG2] i18n comment: Repeated Japanese text
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 1: H34 example source direction
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 2: H34 use of entities
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 3: H56 link to bidi primer
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 4: H56 incorrect link target
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment 5: H56 source text
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Bidi links
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Commonness of ruby
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Description of ruby positions
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Direction of text
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: H62 Ex4 descn
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: head missing
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: je ne sais quoi
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Language tagging link
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: pr tags missing
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 in H58 tests
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 links
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: RFC 3066 reference in tests
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: rp doesn't provide information
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Ruby resources
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Tests ignore xml:lang
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: Tutorial link
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: XHTML 1.0
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: XML 1.01
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in H57 title
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in H58 title
[WCAG2 TECHS] i18n comment: xml:lang missing in tests
[WCAG2] i18n comment 2: Primary natural language
[WCAG2] i18n comment: Natural languages
[WCAG2] i18n comment: Provide simpler text
\"Accessibility Supported\" awkward sentence
\"Accessibility Supported\" comma and small change
\"all\" of the following requirements CAN\'T be met, as depends on chosen level
\"Authoring tools\" section has been removed
\"Contrast ratio\" definition and user-selected colours
\"human language\"
\"idioms\"
\"Interruptions\" may warrant a higher priority
\"keyboard interface\"
\"large scale\"
\"machine-readable metadata\" preferred...but do UAs support it?
\"Non-Interference\" \"No Keyboard Trap\" dependend on UA/plugin as well
\"non-text content\"
\"Optional components...\" meta-data reference, pt 2
\"Optional components...\" typo and awkward sentence
\"Programmatically Determined\" addition to last sentence
\"Programmatically Determined\" awkward sentence
\"Web Page\" definition
\"Web Page\" definition and user agents
\"Web Page\" definition and user agents, pt 2
\'Description of the URI\' does not map well to a \'product\'
a few more A-OK dispositions [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
A new Success Criterion regarding use of color.
A, AA, AAA criteria
A-OK dispositions [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (n of 4)]
about \"Accessibility Supported\"
Accessible Technology
Add definition of testability to Guidelines (Introduction & Glossary)
Add Exception to 3.1.1
Add video-clips to illustrate solutions
Adding \"at least\" to second sentances of 1.4.3 & 1.4.5
Addition of a related resource
Addition to \"Accessibility-Supported Technologies\"
Addition to \"Creating your own list...\" section.
An advisory on anti-aliased fonts.
Apologetic whining in \"Sufficient Techniques\" explanation
AT heavy \"levels of conformance\" bullet points
Automatic testing
Awkward and incomplete wording
Awkward wording for new technologies bit
Awkward wording on confomance level
Awkwkard non-word \"turnon\"
Ban hiding link text
better but still dommageable concept
bullet 2, \"checked\", seems unnecessary
Can CSS colour be classed as \"programmatically determined\"?
Change alternative number two \"Checked\"
Clarification of Text, image of text, and visually randered text
Clarification on Conformance Requirements for Alternative Content
Clarify 2.4.4 by adding \"taken together\" or \"together with\"
Clearly identify supplemental content or alternate version
Comma and \"but\" in \"Advisory Techniques\"
Comment LC-1020
Comment LC-1021
Comment LC-1022
Comment LC-1023
Comment LC-1024
Comment LC-1026
Comment LC-1027
Comment LC-1028
Comment LC-1029
Comment LC-1030
Comment LC-1031
Comment LC-1032
Comment LC-1033
Comment LC-1034
Comment LC-1037
Comment LC-1038
Comment LC-1039
Comment LC-1040
Comment LC-1041
Comment LC-1042
Comment LC-1044
Comment LC-1047
Comment LC-1051
Comment LC-1052
Comment LC-1053
comment on responses to comments on WCAG 2.0 27 April 2006 draft
comments and issues on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/
Comments on WCAG 2.0 Draft of May 2007
Comments on WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 - response to WG
Comments on WCAG 2.0 WD, 17 May 2007
common failure and Sufficient Techniques matching
Confusing linkage between documents
confussion with non-live audio/video
Consider this technique for 2.4.1
Contents ordering is odd
contextual alternative
contextual caption and summary
contrast ratio SC level
Contrast value and background problem
ddncofhbvk
Definition of \"Mechanism\" needs clarification
Definition of \"Technology\" should be changed to allow synchronization with AUWG\'s definition of \"content type\"
Definition of the wider range of people
Defintion of \"programmatically determined link context\" refers to \"sentence\".
direct context or DOM context
disagree LC-1195 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
disagree LC-1196 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
disagree LC-1202 (with how to salvage...) [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
Does HTML using pt or px meet this with today\'s user agents?
Does video with synchronized captions fit into 1.2?
doing a little more for people with cognitive limitations
Editorial
elevator safety code violations ---IHS
EOWG new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May 2007 Working Draft
Eric Hansen comments on WCAG 2
Eric Hansen reaction to WCAG 2.0 WG responses to Eric's comments on the 2006 working draft
Example in the intent for change of context is not a change of context
Exceptions for single words and other classes of words
Frame technique promote old fashion web
Fwd: Fwd: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
Fwd: Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Fwd: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
General
Good job done
Grounds for \"200%\"
Guideline 1.3
Guideline 2.2
Guideline does not mention the need for equivalent alternatives (only SC).
Guidelines, not requirements?
H1-H6, Leval A or AAA?
Handling non-conformance of one of many pages in a product
Headings as AA
How does \"I accept this license agreement\" type operation conform
How to measure dB(A) SPL and Tools
Human testers should always be persons with disabilities
IBM Comments to WCAG 2 May 17 Working Draft
in practice, difference between \"blink\" and \"flash\" still unclear, even with appendix
Include criterion 3.1.5 in levels A and AA
Inconsistent treatment of null content
Inconsistent treatment of null content (2)
Increase SC for 3.3.4
Interface Design
Intro to the four principles
Invalide test procedure
just \"in text\"?
just \"people with disabilities\"?
just \"users with disabilities\"?
just \"visually\" evident?
just applicable to \"instructions\"?
Keep 2.4.4 as a Level-A Success Criterion.
Lack of attention to the deaf people needs.
lang in attribut
Layout using CSS
LC 1307 NOT SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1043
LC-1200, 1203, 1204, 1206 disagree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1201 accept w/fresh comment [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1209 agree w/comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
LC-1213 accept w/comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1214 accept with comment Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
LC-1302 NOT SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1308 SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1309 SATISFIED Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-1320 NEW PROBLEM Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
LC-978 OK w/comment [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft...]
LC-979 respectfully disagree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
Let the user use her preferred format for input
Level of priority
level of this success criterion
Limits on user controlled timed events
Limts on pronunciations
Links give context
Links give context - CORRECTION
mclawuoouc
mechanism, or should it be \"programmatically determined\", or both?
Mention of the Microsoft Word Readability Formulas
missing information on common failures
more ergonomic problem than accessibility problem
Multimedia and Video confusion
No provision for link highlighting
Not clear that it\'s ok to provide directions once for a site.
Not clear whether web pages should use W3C technologies
Notes 1 and 2 on the Assistive Technology Definition
only 9 pages long
Overview content tweak
Page title as context
Please choose your side, UA bug or not ?
Please Remove the \"Testability\" Requirement
prerecorded or pre-recorded?
Present more techiques on how improve texts
Prohibiting images of important text
Rationale for \"200%\" and 50%?
Readability is broken
Reading level changed to primary education level
reclassing it from AAA to A
Referencing User Agents and Assistive Technologies
Reminder - request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Reminder -- request for response on WCAG 2.0 comments
Remove testability requirements
Replace example 4
Replace term \"visually rendered\"
Requirement for \'7.) Full Pages\' may be too narrow
resized without AT
resized without AT (same issue as my comment to 1.4.4)
resizing of form controls
Respecting OS keyboard accessibility features
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 1
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 2
Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 3 and 4
Responsible for \"200%\" and 50%\"
Rewording 1.1 slightly to include pure text, and a comma
SC 1.1.1 and 2.4 6 [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call...]
SC 2.4.1: use of term "block of content"
SC 2.4.8 should be at higher level
SC level for 3.1.3
SC-958, 1218 not quite agree [was: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call ...]
SCR21: Using functions of the Document Object Model (DOM) to add content to a page
Should 2.4.9 be a AA requirement?
Should Icons be included in contrast requirements?
Should prohibit \"relies upon scripting\"
Significant improvement over previous drafts.
Site listed in resources appears to have some issues
Skip links are not required to be visible (G1)
Sound Volume Control
Stray comma
Stray comma and \"standard\"?
Stronger statement about accessibility for people with cognitive disability
Success Criterion score
Suggested additional qualification
Symbols illustrating texts can be ignored by assistive technology
teastability
techniques document review
Techniques for WCAG 2: F42
Testability
Testability is dramatically hurting the WCAG
Testing comment form (please ignore)
Testing for everything is unworkable.
Text resizing
Thanks for the reply
- Shibu (Wednesday, 6 June)
The parenthetical phrase is confusing
The phrasing of this SC is not definitive enough
The presentation is unnecessarily difficult.
The relationship between labels and names is not clear enough.
the SC should be applicable even on a single page
This SC is at a level that will not be adopted by many sites β?? it is too important to leave at β??AAAβ??
Time Limit for Access Control
Time Limit for Security
Time Limit for Security/Access Control
too vague
Transcript = text allows no captions
Transcripts not given adequate relevance
Trying to help readability
UA bug on object
Use alternative versions only when necessary
Use heading for different columns in web page layouts?
Use Headings as well as make them meaningful
Use of color information for contextual distinction
Use of wmode
user agent detection
viewing size of non-text content without alternatives
W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07
WCAG 2 reads well
WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission
WCAG-WG's response to comments
What about non-visually evident?
What does \"accessibility support\" mean?
Which sc covers frame names?
whole SC seems unnecessary
Why \"18 point or 14 point bold\"?
Why \"Documented lists\" needed?
Why is Sign Language not required on non-multimedia
Wording - \"easier\" (than what?)
Wording not explicit enough, and too similar to 2.4.4
Wording suggests that a link context is required
wrong sucess criteria association
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
- Shawn Henry (Friday, 29 June)
- Charles McCathieNevile (Monday, 11 June)
- Andi Snow-Weaver (Monday, 11 June)
- Jim Thatcher (Thursday, 7 June)
- Greg Gay (Friday, 8 June)
- Kiyochika Nakamura (Friday, 8 June)
- Maciej Jaros (Thursday, 7 June)
- Wayne Dick (Wednesday, 6 June)
- Jason Gottshall (Wednesday, 6 June)
- William Loughborough (Wednesday, 6 June)
- Christophe Strobbe (Wednesday, 6 June)
- Lachlan Hunt (Tuesday, 5 June)
- Bailey Bruce (Tuesday, 5 June)
- Loretta Guarino Reid (Tuesday, 5 June)
- Gregg Vanderheiden (Friday, 1 June)
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 3)
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 8)
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 8)
Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (Issue ID: LC-712)
Last message date: Saturday, 30 June 2007 18:52:39 UTC