public-comments-wcag20@w3.org from June 2007 by subject

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

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

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