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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 3)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:31:42 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171631s51aaa002nca1e1cdf28ded62f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Chris Ridpath ,

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/20060515154507.13D6766368@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-468)

Item Number: H51: Using table markup to present tabular information...
Part of Item: Description
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Using the HTML table element... - "table" not marked as "code".

...the HTML pre element... - "pre" not marked as "code".

Proposed Change:
Mark the two words as "code".

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

Thanks. The missing code elements have been added as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060515190851.73CE8DAE86@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-477)

Item Number: H63: Using the scope attribute to associate header cells
and data cells in data tables...
Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Technique H63 says it is referenced from SC 1.3.4.

It is actually referenced from SC 1.3.1

Proposed Change:

Change reference to SC 1.3.1.

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

Thanks. The reference has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060503141556.E9C0CBDA7@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-486)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

The term "parsed unambiguously" is ambiguous. Parsing requires a set
of rules and without those rules the parsing result may be
meaningless. For example, an HTML file may be parsed using the rule
"by line". It may also be parsed using the rule "by sentence and
word". This parsing will produce an unambiguous tree structure but has
no effect on accessibility. I believe the intent of the SC is to
include the set of rules (e.g. DTD or schema) that has an effect on
accessibility.

Proposed Change:

Include text that specifies the set of rules needed to parse the
document. Example: "Web units or authored components can be parsed
unambiguously using the specification that affects accessibility...".
In the techniques document you can specify the appropriate rules such
as in HTML use one of the standard DTDs.

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

We have reworded SC 4.1.1 as follows:

4.1.1 Content implemented using markup languages has elements with
complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their
specifications, and are nested according to their specifications.
(Level A)

Note: Start and end tags that are missing a critical character in
their formation, such as a closing angle bracket or a mismatched
attribute value quote are not complete.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060516185639.34206BDD9@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-523)

Item Number: H1: Adding the dir attribute to a block level element to
change its directionality...
Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Says H1 is referenced from 1.3.1 but it's not. It is referenced from 1.3.3.

Proposed Change:

H1 could fall under both 1.3.1 and 1.3.3. Fix applicability so it
falls under the appropriate SC.

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

Thank you for catching this error. After reviewing comments from   the
Internationalization Working Group, we believe the direction of text
is only an accessibility issue when it affects the proper sequencing
of mixed-direction text, so we have deleted this technique.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060509145615.D5BE7DAE7E@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-522)

Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Typo: "#1 and #2 are true"
There is only 1 check.

Proposed Change:

#1 is true

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

The technique has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060516185110.70BE5BDA9@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-524)

Item Number: H34: Using a Unicode right-to-left mark (RLM) or
left-to-right mark (LRM) to mix text dire...
Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Says H34 is referenced from SC 1.3.1 but it is not. It is referenced
from SC 1.3.3

Proposed Change:
H34 could fall under both 1.3.1 and 1.3.3.

Add link to H34 on 1.3.1 or remove from \"applicability\". Add 1.3.3
to applicability or remove link to H34 from 1.3.3.

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

The technique has been updated to reference SC 1.3.2 (formerly 1.3.3).

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060517145306.BF83333208@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-553)

Item Number: G18: Ensuring that luminosity contrast of at least 5:1
exists between text ...
Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Procedure step #4 does not exist.

Proposed Change:
Renumber the steps or change the step number.

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

The procedure section has been updated to include the correct number of steps.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060517163458.26395DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-554)

Item Number: G17: Ensuring that luminosity contrast of at least 10:1
exists between text...
Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Expected results - there is no point #4

Proposed Change:
Add other points or change number.

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

The procedure section has been updated to include the correct number of steps.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602180251.0E787DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-701)

Part of Item: Description
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Confusing technique.
Does Jim Thatcher\'s article state this?
Examp1e 1 \"Skip navigation links\" is same as G1.
It seems that breaking up the page into several pages would be better.

Proposed Change:

Provide more examples of where this is used to clarify its use.

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

While Jim Thatcher's article does not include this technique, we think
it is a generally helpful resource for Skip Navigation. We have also
added a reference to the Navigation Section of his Web Accessibility
tutorial, which includes some examples of pages with multiple sets of
navigation links.

We have updated the descriptions of techniques G1, G123, and G124 to
indicate when they might be most effective for different types of
content.

New Description for G1
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/#G1 ):
"The objective of this technique is to provide a mechanism to bypass
blocks of material that are repeated on multiple Web units by skipping
directly to the main content of the Web unit. The first interactive
item in the Web unit is a link to the beginning of the main content.
Activating the link sets focus beyond the other content to the main
content. This technique is most useful when a Web unit has one main
content area, rather than a set of content areas that are equally
important."

New Description for G123
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/#G123 ):
"The objective of this technique is to provide a mechanism to bypass a
block of material by skipping to the end of the block. The first link
in the block or the link directly preceding the block moves focus to
the content immediately after the block. Activating the link advances
the keyboard focus past the block. When there are multiple blocks to
be skipped, the user skips from block to block via these links."

New Description for G124
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/#G124 ):
"The objective of this technique is to provide a mechanism to bypass
blocks of material by providing a list of links to the different
sections of the content. The links in this list, like a small table of
contents at the beginning of the content, set focus to the different
sections of the content. This technique is particularly useful for
pages with many independent sections, such as portals. It may also be
combined with other techniques for skipping blocks within a section."

Added Example 4 to G123
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/#G123 ):
Example 4: HTML page with several blocks of navigation links
This example demonstrates both the use of Heading elements at the
beginning of each section (H69) and links that skip to the end of each
section. This allows people to skip blocks of repeated content using
keyboard navigation or using heading navigation, depending on the
capabilities of their user agents. Note that some sections of the
content are wrapped in a
element to work around a limitation of Internet Explorer (see the User
Agents Notes for [Creating HTML links to skip blocks of content]).

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602133903.DB6AC66363@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-665)

Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

There needs to be a technique the describes how to include words
within an image in the alternate text.

Proposed Change:

All text within the image that is relative to the document should be
included in the alternate text. Relates to technique H36 and others.

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

The working group believes that the technique you are requesting is
covered by example 1 of technique H37 and thus, there does not need to
be a specific technique covering words in images.  However, we have
updated techniques H37 and G94.

We have added the following to the description of H37: When an image
contains words that are important to understanding the content, the
alt text should include those words. This will allow the alt text to
play the same function on the page as the image. Note that it does not
necessarily describe the visual characteristics of the image itself
but must convey the same meaning as the image. If the text in the
image is more than can fit in a short text alternative then it should
be described in the short text alternative and a longdesc should be
provided as well with the complete text.

We have updated example 1 in H37 to:
Example 1. An image on a website provides a link to a free newsletter.
The image contains the text "Free newsletter. Get free recipes, news,
and more. Learn more." The alt text matches the text in the image.

We have also added the following test procedure to H37:
1. Examine each img element in the content
2. Check that each img element which conveys meaning contains an alt attribute.
3. If the image contains words that are important to understanding the
content, the words are included in the text alternative.

We added the following expected results to H37:
Check #2 is true.  If the non-text content contains words that are
important to understanding the content, Check #3 is also true.

We also added the following to the description of G94:
"When non-text content contains words that are important to
understanding the content, the alt text should include those words. If
the text in the image is more than can fit in a short text alternative
then it should be described in the short text alternative and a long
text alternative should be provided as well with the complete text."

We added the following example to G94:
A heading contains a picture of the words, "The History of War" in
stylized text. The alt text for the picture is "The History of War".

We added the following item to the test procedure of G94:
4. If the non-text content contains words that are important to
understanding the content, the words are included in the text
alternative.

We have updated the Expected results of G94 to:
Step 3 is true.  If the non-text content contains words that are
important to understanding the content, Step 4 is also true.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602135331.C9271DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-666)

Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

None of the tests are expressed as testable statements. None of the
tests have examples.
Tests already exist at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/

Proposed Change:

Express the tests as testable statements. Include example files.
Use the existing tests.

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

Each of the techniques has a test procedure and an expected result
from the procedure.  We have test files (actually example files for
pass and failure) for some of the techniques, most of which came from
the location you cited http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/
There is now a joint task force with ERT WG that will be working on
identifying or developing sample files for the other techniques.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602135542.E315EDAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-667)

Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Location of alt text is ambiguous. Could be in alt attribute or in
body of applet.

Proposed Change:

applet contains a text equivalent in the alt attribute of the applet.

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

Good catch.  We have updated technique H35 to require the use of an
alt attribute and a text alternative in the body of the applet.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602140047.EDB3933205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-668)

Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Does not describe what should go in noembed.

Proposed Change:

noembed should contain alternate content that provides the same
information as the embed.

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

It might not be possible to provide the same information as the embed,
however, the noembed should contain an appropriate alternative as
defined by SC 1.1.1. The general techniques defined in How to Meet SC
1.1.1 provide instructions and tests for appropriate alternatives.

However, the following sentence has been added to the description for
technique H46:

"The noembed element should contain an appropriate text alternative."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060602140426.7651833205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-669)

Part of Item: Tests
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Test does not test for technique. Test only looks for long description.

Proposed Change:

Modify test so it looks for any alternate content that provides same
information as object.

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

The working group has updated the test procedure for technique H53,
Using the body of the object element. The procedure now states, "Check
that the body of each object element contains a text alternative for
the object."
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:32:04 UTC

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