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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 2)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:33:24 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171633k68678ae6od6b053fb6a1ed5a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Hansen" <ehansen@ets.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 1:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/404EE2EE73FEE7489A101E7256B5CD9F024B8CC3@rosnt108.etslan.org
(Issue ID: LC-738)

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

•	If non-text content presents information or responds to user input,
text alternatives serve the same purpose and present the same
information as the non-text content. If text alternatives cannot serve
the same purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose
of the non-text content.

Should this "If" better be a "Where"? General comment… I find myself
wanting to see a "then" at the beginning of the consequence…

Proposed Change:

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

We agree that "where" could be used.  We have chosen "if" however to
keep a common format in the guidelines.  We have added "then" to
bullets #1, #3 and #4.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606063536.23E81DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-739)

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

•	If non-text content is multimedia; live audio-only or live
video-only content; a test or exercise that must use a particular
sense; or is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience; then text alternatives at least identify the non-text
content with a descriptive text label. (For multimedia, see also
Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia .)

This seems to be a significant retreat from WCAG 1.0….

Proposed Change:

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

The text in question does not represent a retreat from WCAG 1.0
requirements for pre-recorded audio, video, or multimedia. Rather, it
outlines a series of exceptions where a descriptive label (rather than
a text alternative that serves the same purpose and presents the same
information as the non-text content) is appropriate.

Audio only and video only content that is prerecorded is required to
have a text alternative that serves the same purpose and presents the
same information as the non-text content at Level A in SC 1.1.1.

The first exception is for multimedia, which (in addition to being
identified with a label in 1.1.1) is also addressed through
requirements under Guideline 1.2.

The second exception is for *live* audio-only and video-only content.
It is included as an exception because the working group feels that
real-time captioning and audio description requires special skills,
and should not be required at Level A.

Text alternatives are not required for a test or exercise that must
use a particular sense because providing the text alternative would
invalidate the test. For example, a spelling test provides an audio
recording of a word that is to be spelled. A text alternative for the
audio recording would provide the user with the correct answer and
defeat the purpose of the test or exercise.

For non-text content that provides a specific sensory experience, such
as classical music or visual art, it is difficult to develop testable
success criteria for the long description for such content. However,
you can provide a descriptive text label that at least identifies what
it is. Additional techniques could be used to provide a more detailed
description.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606063624.EB8BBDAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-740)

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

1.2.2 Audio descriptions of video, or a full multimedia text
alternative including any interaction, are provided for prerecorded
multimedia.

This is a significant change from WCAG 1.0 (allowing the FMTA to
replace the audio descriptions.

Proposed Change:

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

Yes this is a significant change.  It was done with the realization
that audio description will not work for some training videos where
there is no gap in dialog and important visual information. It also
allows a full text equivalent as an alternative for those cases where
that is easier -- in recognition that a text alternative has always
been viewed as sufficient.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606063657.17DC6DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-741)

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

1.2.5 Sign language interpretation is provided for multimedia.

Why apparent bias towards sign language instead of other forms of
manual communication?

Proposed Change:

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

Thank you for your new proposed definitions.  We have revised the
definitions to read:

sign language
  a visual language using combinations of movements of the hands and
arms, facial expressions, and body positions to convey meaning

sign language interpretation
  translation of one language, generally a spoken language, into a
sign language

Note: Most sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated
to the spoken language(s) of the same country or region.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606063752.C6580DAF25@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-742)

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

1.3.2 Any information that is conveyed by color is also visually
evident without color.

 Presumably it could be evident by shape, size, location, etc…… This
seems problematic, since what is visually evident depends so heavily
on the person. For some, nothing is visually evident….!

Proposed Change:

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

The requirement to be visually evident is intended to benefit those
who have trouble with certain color combinations, but who can perceive
and interpret visual cues. However, for those who cannot perceive
them, SC 1.3.1 (Info & Relationships) separately requires that the
information be programatically determined. These two success criteria
are intended to be complementary to each other.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606064102.82271DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-743)

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

Note: A 20 decibel difference in sound level is roughly four times
(4x) quieter or louder. Background sound that meets this requirement
will be approximately four times (4x) quieter than the foreground
audio content.)

Is this correct???

Proposed Change:

Per the definition of decibels, background sound that meets this
requirement will be approximately four times (4x) quieter than the
foreground audio content.

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

We accept your suggestion for a simplified note on this success
criterion.  However, there was another suggestion as well  so the
simplified note now reads:
"NOTE: Background sound that meets this requirement will be
approximately one quarter as loud as the foreground speech content."

Note also that the success criterion now talks about foreground speech
content rather than foreground audio.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606064254.335FFDAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-744)

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

Recommends deleting \"does not preclude\" from :

Note: This does not preclude and should not discourage the support of
other input methods (such as a mouse) in addition to keyboard
operation.

Proposed Change:

Note: This should not discourage the support of other input methods
(such as a mouse) in addition to keyboard operation.

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

The two statements are distinct.   We believe it is better to make
both statements clear.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606064513.A00B947B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-745)

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

2.2.2 Content does not blink for more than three seconds, or a method
is available to stop all blinking content in the Web unit or authored
component.

If the claim is about Web units, then why does this refer to "or
authored component."??? Isn't it redundant? If not then this really
needs to be clarified. Same issue in later reference "authored" stuff…

2.4.6 When a Web unit or authored component is navigated sequentially,
components receive focus in an order that follows relationships and
sequences in the content.

It seems to me that the term authored components does not belong in
the normative part of the document unless the relationship between an
authored component and a Web unit has been clearly defined in the
glossary….!

Proposed Change:

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

We have changed the success criteria to use the term "Web page"
instead of "Web unit or authored component".

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606064836.4234247B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-746)

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

2.4.3 Web units have titles.

The How to Meet material seems to view Web units as pages, but the
definition is really broader….

Proposed Change:

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

Thank you for catching this. We have removed the examples that are not
Web pages and added an example of a Web application.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606065116.39FA647B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-748)

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

4.1.1 Web units or authored components can be parsed unambiguously,
and the relationships in the resulting data structure are also
unambiguous.

I find this checkpoint very hard to comprehend. It seems that it
should be handled by a success criterion that requires conforming to
spec. But I looked at some of the background discussion.  I am not
sure now how to improve.


Proposed Change:

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

To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC
4.1.1 as follows:

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.

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.

The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended
period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all
aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase
in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages
that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain
situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is
not part of the specification.

The working group must work within its charter and only include things
that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use
technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to
accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would
take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our #1
technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606065226.C015747B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-749)

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

4.2.1 At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success
criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 1
success criteria may be available from the same URI.

With all the effort to define terms like Web unit, authored unit,
authored component, do we really need another term "content"?

Proposed Change:

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

The term "content" is important to define because it defines the scope
of information that the WCAG guidelines can apply to. The term is used
in multiple places throughout the guidelines and success criteria. We
have, however, replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have
reformulated the success criteria and glossary to remove both
"authored unit" and "authored component" from the guidelines.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606065255.1A3A647B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-750)

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

4.2.2 Content meets the following criteria even if the content uses a
technology that is not in the chosen baseline:

This presumably applies to technologies even beyond those explicitly
listed as being used, right.? Needs to be clarified

Proposed Change:

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

We have moved this topic to the conformance section of the guidelines.
We have clarified this conformance criterion with the following
wording:

Non-Interference: If Web technologies that are not accessibility
supported are used on a page, they do not block the ability of the
users to access the rest of the page. Specifically:

   1. No Keyboard Trap: If focus can be moved to technologies that are
not accessibility supported using a keyboard interface, then focus can
be moved away from that content using only a keyboard interface, and
the method for doing so is described before the content is encountered
and in a way that meets all Level A success criteria.
   2. Three Flashes or Below Threshold: To minimize the risk of
seizures due to photosensitivity, content does not contain anything
that flashes more than three times in any one second period, or the
flash is below the general flash and red flash thresholds (see Success
Criterion 2.3.1).
   3. Non support: The content continues to work and meet the
conformance requirements even if the (non accessibility-supported)
technology is turned off or not supported by a user agent.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606065631.24D7F47B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-751)

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

Complete revision of conformance section proposed at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/att-0042/S3-conformance-EGH-05Jun2006-01.doc

Proposed Change:

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

The conformance section of WCAG 2.0 has been completely rewritten.
Many of these suggestions were addressed, and some are no longer
applicable.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060606065843.A0D1D47B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1488)

Based on the definitions, are not all acronyms also initialisms? If
so, indicate. I am not an expert.

initialism
shortened form of a name or phrase made from the initial letters of
words or syllables contained in that name or phrase. [Are acronyms a
type of initialism?]

Proposed Change:

Note: Includes initialisms including acronyms.

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

The working group found that the differentiation between these two
terms is somewhat contentious and decided to define and refer to them
separately. The proposed revision was not accepted because, depending
upon which definition you use, the results would differ. Regardless of
whether something is an initialism or an acronym, it needs to meet
success criterion 3.1.4.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:33:39 UTC

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