Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Dr Philip J Naylor ,

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/0060522125632.AF10CDAE7D@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-570)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
Actually this comment relates to the "Conformance" overview, which
isn't selectable from the menu on the comments web form.

It is a concern that organizations will retain the mindset that AA
conformance is enough to claim "reasonable effort" in descrimination
cases, even if their environment supports easy implementation of level
3 success criteria.  The change of approach from "priorities" to
"levels" should be emphasised, especially that even AAA conformance
does not imply that a site is accessible.

Proposed Change:

Emphasise the paragraph beginning "This method of grouping success
criteris differs...", especially the last sentence.

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

We clarified the meanings of the conformance levels to make WCAG 2.0's
use of conformance level clearer. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels .

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522125759.84A64DAE90@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-571)

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

Typo.

Proposed Change:

Last sentence of "Choosing baseline technologies" should read
"...users may have..." not "...users many have...".

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

This section has been rewritten and the error no longer occurs.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522130246.D35DB47B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-572)

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

It is not at all clear how one would provide a regular expression to
scope a claim that would apply to a whole site except one or two
diretories, e.g. the whole of http://www.example.com/ except /videos/

Proposed Change:

Add examples for less straight forward conformance scope regular expressions.

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

An example of both a boolean and a regular expression conformance
claim has been added (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#uc-239-head
):

Example 4: (using boolean logic) On 6 July 2008, http://example.com/
AND NOT (http://example.com/archive/ OR
http://example.com/publications/archive/) conforms to Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/. Double-A (AA)
conformance. The documented set of accessibility-supported content
technologies used for this claim is ISA- AsCTset#1-2008 at
http://ISA.example.gov/AsCTsets/AS2-2008.

Example 5: (using a regular expression) On 12 August 2008,
http://www.example.com/(marketing|sales|contact)/.* conforms to Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/. Double-A (AA)
conformance. The technologies that this content "relies upon" is:
XHTML 1.0 Transitional. The technologies that this content "uses but
does not rely upon" are CSS 1.0 and JavaScript 1.2.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522131106.6174B47B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-573)

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

Even after reading the \"Understanding...\" document, the difference
between SCs 2.4.8 and 2.4.4 is very subtle and needs to be a lot
clearer.
N.B. any link where the link text alone indicates its purpose will
already meet SC 2.4.4.

Proposed Change:

Reword, along the lines of:
2.4.8 The purpose of each link can be programmatically determined from
extra information related to the link.

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

We have reworded both SC 2.4.8 and SC 2.4.4 to clarify the
differences. They now read:

2.4.4 The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text
and its programmatically determined link context.
2.4.8 The purpose of each link can be identified from the link text.

where "Programmatically determined link context" is defined as:

   1. Additional information that can be programmatically determined
from relationships with a link; and
   2.can be extracted, combined with the link text, and presented to
users in different modalities.

Example 1: Screen readers provide commands to read the current
sentence when focus is on a link.

Example 2: Examples of information that can be extracted, combined
with link text, and presented to users in different modalities include
text that is in the same sentence, paragraph, list, or table cell as
the link or in a table header cell that is associated with the table
cell that contains the link.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522131223.AC12147B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-574)

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

The success criteria, stripped of the supporting documentattion, are
amazingly concise - well done to all concerned.

Proposed Change:
(none)

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

Thank you.  We appreciate you taking the time to fill out the comment
form to include this feedback.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522132004.82ACFBDA9@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-575)

Part of Item: Examples
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
"breadcrumb trail" is no more an obvious term than many others in the glossary.

Proposed Change:

Add glossary entry for "breadcrumb trail".

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

We agree that the term needs explaining. The glossary only includes
terms that are used in the guidelines. However, the term breadcrumb
trail is in a link to a technique titled "Providing a Breadcrumb
Trail".  Clicking on this link takes you to the technique description
that begins with a description of exactly what a breadcrumb trail is
and includes several examples.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522132839.2EF4447BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-577)

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

The relationship with the main WCAG document should be bi-directional,
and the document should be able to "stand alone",especially if (as I
was) you're working from a printed copy of the document.

Proposed Change:
Add relevant SC text to the start of each of the "Failure" sections.

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

Good idea.  We have changed the title "Technique referenced from" to
"Failure relates to" and put the following links under that title
* SC X.X.X
* How to Meet SC X.X.X

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522133129.8BE2CBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-578)

Part of Item: Related Techniques
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
To aid navigation of hardcopy versions of the document, removing the
need to keep refering to the table of contents.

Proposed Change:
Add the relevant section numbers to the internal link texts in
"Related Techniques".

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

We have changed references to "Related Techniques" so that they
include the Number of the techniques (e.g.  H45 ) along with the name.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:32:57 UTC