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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:28:38 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171628i7e01b404h66dca1eaf252f9dc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Catherine Brys" <c.brys@lib.gla.ac.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Catherine Brys ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the
interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.

This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions
to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of
your original comment on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/.

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly
archived.

We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review.

Thank you,

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/D220396CC472364C9B3B2327A25B353D905723@exchange-be2.centre.ad.gla.ac.uk
(Issue ID: LC-1304)

Hello,

I don't think there is any point in addressing specific issues with
the WCAG 2.0 since there are so many and I have problems with the
overall concept of the WCAG 2.0.

I will limit myself to agreeing with Brian Kelly's suggestions
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0143.html)
to:
o Withdraw WCAG 2.0
o Produce an errata for WCAG 1.0

WCAG 1.0 is outdated and needs some corrections but overall it is a
useful document. WCAG 2.0 could not be further removed from what web
developers/authors need.
It would have been nice to have a different approach than the one used
in WCAG 1.0 - e.g. a truly easy-to-use and accessible web site rather
than a set of hyperlinked documents. However, WCAG 2.0 has not
addressed the issues web developers had with WCAG 1.0, nor has it
built upon the strengths of WCAG 1.0.

During the drafting of WCAG 2.0 many routes have been explored but the
result is so far off the track (vague, difficult to understand, hard
to navigate) that I think it will be impossible for web developers to
apply the guidelines. Many web developers will give up on web
accessibility or be confused and as a result, fewer web sites will be
accessible.
I hope the WCAG WG can take into account the concerns so many of us
have been expressing.

Best regards,

Catherine

Disclaimer: The comments above represent the personal opinion of the
sender; they do not necessarily represent the University's viewpoint.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have been working hard to try to make the organization and contents
of the WCAG 2.0 documents easier to read and to manage. The
publication of the Quick Reference
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/ is one example. We hope this
will make the guidelines easier for web developers to apply.

We do not think that publishing an errata to WCAG 1.0 will address the
current state of the Web that WCAG 2.0 attempts to address: web
technologies continue to develop, and it is critical that new
technologies address accessibility as they evolve. WCAG 2 provides
testable, technology-independent guidelines that should provides
guidance for how to use any technology on the Web.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:28:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:07 UTC