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 16:33:57 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171633g2241110cpe9db22e8df99664c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Giorgio Brajnik" <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Giorgio Brajnik ,

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/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-895)

it would be useful to read an example of web unit that is NOT a web page.

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

We have replaced the term "Web unit" with "Web page" and have modified
the section on new terms to describe our use of the term "Web page" in
greater detail. We have also added an example of content that may not
immediately be recognized as a "Web page." See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#webpagedef .

Web page

a resource that is referenced by a URI and is not embedded in another
resource, plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or
intended to be rendered together with it

    Note: Although any "other resources" would be rendered together
with the primary resource, they would not necessarily be rendered
simultaneously with each other.

    Example 1: When you enter http://shopping.example.com/ in your
browser you enter a movie-like interactive shopping environment where
you visually move about a store dragging products off of the shelves
around you into a visual shopping cart in front of you. Clicking on a
product causes it to be demonstrated with a specification sheet
floating alongside.

    Example 2: A Web resource including all embedded images and media.

    Example 3: A Web mail program built using Asynchronous JavaScript
and XML (AJAX). The program lives entirely at http://mail.example.com,
but includes an inbox, a contacts area and a calendar. Links or
buttons are provided that cause the the inbox, contacts, or calendar
to display, but do not change the URL of the page as a whole.

    Example 4: A customizable portal site, where users can choose
content to display from a set of different content modules.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-896)

in note 1 you refer to triple A but that concept has not been yet defined

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

Thank you for catching this. We have completely rewritten the
conformance section, and triple A is now defined before it is used.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-897)

the def. of level 1/2/3 is vague: what does "a minimum", "enhanced",
"additional" mean? are you asserting that accessibility is a property
that can be totally ordered over a ordered scale, as these adjectives
are suggesting?

Proposed Change:

try to refer to defineable and measurable parameters; or, more
reaslistically, say that this is an assumption that you may describe
in details when presenting each success level.

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

The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to
clarify the differences (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ):

The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more
important than others. Each success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is essential
to some users, and the levels build upon each other. However, even
content that conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to
every person with a disability.

    * In general, Level A success criteria achieve accessibility by
supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible
limits on presentation. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities
using a wide range of assistive technologies, from voice input and
eye-tracking devices to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able
to access content in different ways. In other words, Level A success
criteria support the ability of both mainstream and specialized user
agents to adapt content to formats that meet their users' needs.

    * The success criteria in Level AA provide additional support for
assistive technology. At the same time, they also support direct
access to content by the many people who use conventional user agents
without assistive technology. In general, Level AA success criteria
place more limits on visual presentation and other aspects of content
than the success criteria in Level A.

    * Level AAA success criteria increase both direct access and
access through assistive technology. They place tighter limits on both
presentation and content.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-898)

and what do "can be reasonably" and "cannot necessarily be applied" mean?

Proposed Change:

again, this should be clearly stated as an assumption, when presenting
each single criterion. From these "non definitions" readers would get
that there is an increase of required effort (as conformance levels
increases), an increase in accessibility (whatever that means), but
would not be given any means for understanding which will the benefits
that visitors of the website will get. And if these benefits are worth
the cost (of "non reasonably" applying certain techniques).

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

The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to
clarify the differences (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ).

The accessibility benefits of meeting each success criterion are
described in the Benefits section of the corresponding How To Meet
document.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-899)

in particular the only difference between L1 and L2 is that one is
"minimum" accessibility and the other is "enhanced". Why
distinguishing them? if both sets of techniques can be equally easily
applied, why should one want to go for the minimum?

Proposed Change:

provide a definition of these levels that refer to benefits that can
make sense to people managing a website, so that they can take
informed decisions as to whether to achieve a higher level or not.

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

The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to
clarify the differences (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ).

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-900)

the sentence "all wcag20 statements are testable" is a bit strong!
Only a formally defined language can express sentences that can be
formally, and therefore objectively, verified. And actually not even
that.

The repeatability of assessments that you mention is one hypothesis;
you should clearly say this; or otherwise provide evidence to support
this (relatively important but demanding) claim.

Proposed Change:

I'd suggest to make it weaker, by saying that it is your assumption
(and hope) that they are testable by somebody having a certain level
of experience in .... and (perhaps) when following a certain
procedure. No studies have been performed (yet) in order to determine
is such a property is true.

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

We changed the language from a statement of fact 'that they ARE
testable' to "All WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be
testable".
The sentences following that sentence make it clear the person must be
qualified.   The qualifications to be a WCAG 2.0 tester are not
formalized, and the quantification of knowledge skills and abilities
to do so is beyond the scope of this document.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-902)

the def of user agents include assistive tech, and that is clear. But
what do you mean with "... as long as accessible user agents support
the technology"? that a website useing a tech. not supported by any
accessible user agent could never be claimed to be wcag20 conformant?
also the clause "...user agents including AT" is confusing. If AT is
already a user agent (or part of it), then the clause is not needed.
But if you want to say that the technology should be supported by at
least an accessible user agent that is compatible with at least one
AT, you should say it clearly.

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

Yes, a website that relies upon technology that is not supported by
any  accessible user agent could not claim to be WCAG20 conformant. It
could, however use non accessibility-supported technology as long as
there was an alternate version that provides all of the same
information and functionality.

The guidelines often mention assistive technology explicitly when
discussing user agent support because it is often crucial that the
user agent provide support to assistive technology. This is spelled
out explicitly in the definition of assistive technology in the
glossary, but the working group thought it was important to highlight
this. We have edited the guidelines to make it as clear as possible
that the mention of assistive technology in this context is qualifying
the preceding use of "user agent", not in addition to it.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-903)

if content is "info communicated to user" then it does not include
code and markup. IMO a person senses, perceives, understands signals
sent over some medium by a physical device, and decides, plans an
action, and acts physically on some device. Information can only be
"sent" or "received" in this way (up to now). Code and markup is being
sent to the user agent, which contributes to trasforming them into
signals. But code is never information, as long as a web user is
involved.

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

Thank you for pointing this out.  The new definition is now:
"information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by
means of a user agent, as well as code or markup that define the
structure, presentation, and interactions associated with those
elements"

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-904)

say that "information" is defined below

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

The meaning here is the common meaning of the word. Per a rule to not
keep words in glossary that are used in their standard dictionary
defined way, we have removed 'information' from our glossary.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-905)

i don't think that's a proper and useful definition; arithmetic theory
is a collection of facts and inferential rules; but I wouldn't say
that saying "1+1 equals 2" is providing information.

Proposed Change:

at least refer to what others said about it; eg Bateson defined
information as "the difference that makes a difference"

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

 The meaning here is the common meaning of the word. Per a rule to not
keep words in glossary that are used in their standard dictionary
defined way, we have removed 'information' from our glossary.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-906)

provide references to support your def. This is important to achieve a
higher level of credibility.

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

The 5:1 contrast ratio provides a minimum contrast of around 3:1 for
the major types of color blindness. A contrast ratio of 3:1 is the
minimum level recommended by ANSI/HFS 100-1988. 10:1 provides
approximately 7:1 contrast ratio for individuals with color blindness,
which is the recommended contrast level in ANSI/HFS 100-1988.

We have added the following to the Intent sections of SC 1.4.1 and 1.4.4:

The 5:1 contrast ratio provides a minimum contrast of around 3:1 for
the major types of color blindness. A contrast ratio of 3:1 is the
minimum level recommended by [ISO-9241-3] and [ANSI-HFES-100-1988].

Calculations in ISO 9241-3 and ANSI/HFS 100-1988 are for body text. A
relaxed contrast ratio is provided for text that is much larger (twice
as tall and with three time the thickness of lines in the character).

Notes on formula

Conversion from nonlinear to linear RGB values is based on IEC/4WD
61966-2-1 [IEC-4WD] and on "A Standard Default Color Space for the
Internet - sRGB" [sRGB].

The formula (L1/L2) for contrast is based on ISO 9241-3 and ANSI/HFS
100-1988 standards.

The ANSI/HFS 100-1988 standard calls for the contribution from ambient
light to be included in the calculation of L1 and L2. The .05 value
used is based on Typical Viewing Flare from IEC/4WD 61966-2-1 and the
sRGB paper by M. Stokes et al.

This success criterion and its definitions uses the terms contrast
ratio and relative luminance rather than luminance to reflect the fact
that Web content does not emit light itself. The contrast ratio gives
a measure of the relative luminance that would result when displayed.
(Because it is a ratio, it is dimensionless.)

Note: Refer to related resources for a list of tools that utilize the
contrast ratio to analyze the contrast of Web content.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-907)

is a smiley nontext content?

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

Yes:
- if it is an image, it is non-text content
- if it is in characters, it is ASCII art - which is also non-text
content per definition in the glossary.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-908)

the problem is that in the conformance statement one needs to refer to
a baseline, but wcag20 does not prescribe how a baseline is defined
and what kind of mechanisms it should include. Could a conformance
statement be referring to a baseline defined solely as "netscape 4 on
windows 95"? would this be a valid conformance claim?

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

The conformance section has been completely rewritten, and the term
"baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web
technologies".   What constitutes accessibility support is now clearly
defined.  Note that these technologies are the formats used for
content. They are not user agents. So "netscape 4 on windows 95" would
not be a valid tecnology in a conformance claim.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-909)

add the word "unambiguously"

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

We are trying to keep definitions as short as possible, while accurate
and easy to understand. The working group believes that adding
"unambiguously" would not change the meaning of the definition. If
information can be determined by software, then it must be
unambiguously determinable.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-910)

it is not that the content can be parsed unambiguosly or not. That is
a property of the language, not of the processor of the language. If
the language is ambiguous then a parser could take arbitrary decisions
in interpreting the sentences. Like Italian. HTML, not even 2.0, was
never ambiguous. And if user agents were strict since the beginning,
web authors would have never been allowed to write incorrect html.

Proposed Change:

what 411 should say is that authors should write syntactically correct
code, which is what the techniques say.

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

To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC
4.1.1 to clarify that it must be possible to parse content without the
need for user agent repair. The revised SC reads 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 16:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-911)

values that can be set by users should also be settable by a program?
which values?

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

Any values of any variables that are settable by the user using the
user interface.  Basically this means that if you can set a value (of
anything) from a user interface in Web content, then a person using
software (such as AT) should be able to set the value from that AT.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-912)

... all user interface components...: you mean that each single DOM
element that has perceivable effects on some user needs to have name
and roles defined? eg every

?

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

We have added a definition of user interface component to indicate
that they present an abstraction with which users can interact. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#user-interface-componentdef
.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-913)

for example the word "weekend" is commonly used by Italians, and
usually pronounced similarly to English. However the success criteria
do not prescribe that it is correctly marked up (apparently).

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

When words have become part of the surrounding language in this way,
it is not necessary to indicate a language change.

We have added the following to the Intent section of SC 3.1.2 to
clarify that such uses often do not need to be marked up:

Frequently, when the natural language of text appears to be changing
for a single word, that word has become part of the language of the
surrounding text. Because this is so common in some languages, single
words are not included in this success criterion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 19:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-914)

what is a primary resource?

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

Thank you for catching this error. We have removed the phrase "or
other primary resources" from the success criterion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 20:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-915)

with "identifying" do you mean "a mechanism is available to the user
for identifying..."?

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

The success criteria allows for direct or user-agent provided
mechanisms: the mechanism can either make the information available to
the user or programmatically available to user agents which can then
make it available to the user. We have added an example to Success
Criterion 3.1.4 to demonstrate mechanisms provided to the user by the
user agent.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 21:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-916)

the criterion is ambiguous/or even empty: one could always be
conformant to this by saying that the set of web resources consists
merely of the webunits that share the same order. So if on my website
I put the same 5 links in different orders within the pages, they are
still ok with 323, because each web page makes its own set of
webunits.

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

We have revised this success criterion to reference a "set of Web
pages" and have included a definition for that term:

set of Web pages:
collection of Web pages that have a specific relationship to each
other and that are created as a body of work by an author, group or
organization.
Note: Different language versions would be considered different bodies of work.
Examples: A set of Web pages that make up a report, a test, an
exercise, a catalog, or an application.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 22:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-917)

and how about systems that adapt their gui to the behavior of the
specif user or of a group of similar users? (for example because the
user agent sends an ID to the server that identifies the user as a
blind person?) are these non conformant websites?

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

This success criterion applies to the logical order and default
presentation of the content. This success criterion does not prohibit
choices in adaptive interfaces; enabling adaptive interfaces and
alternate presentations is a goal of WCAG2. However, the user still
needs to initiate the change in order, even if the change is initiated
by global actions such as selecting preferences in a user agent or
using a user agent with adaptive behavior. We have added this
explanation to the Intent Section of the How To Meet document.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 23:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-918)

"content that changes the meaning of a web unit"? but a web unit is
defined as "a collection of information ..." and content as
"information to be communicated" how can a content change the meaning
of other content? It surely can (eg adding a "not" in front of a
sentence might change its meaning). Is this what 321 wants to prevent?

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

Web pages do indeed contain content.  And if that content changes to
other content (with a different meaning) at a time that is unexpected,
it can be missed or generate confusion.  This is what we are referring
to.   With regard to your specific question about adding the word
"not" to a page:    That is an interesting example.  Normally,
changing a single word on a page would not be considered a change of
context.  However, if the individual has read past that point and the
addition of the word changes the meaning of the whole page (for
example from supporting or agreeing with something to disagreeing with
it) then it would indeed be a change of context to the user and it
would be covered here for obvious reasons.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 24:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-919)

to me the distinction between L1 L2 L3 is arbitrary. violation of any
of them is likely to hinder some user, and they seem to me equally
difficult or easy to achieve

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

The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to
clarify the differences (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ):

The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more
important than others. Each success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is essential
to some users, and the levels build upon each other. However, even
content that conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to
every person with a disability.

    * In general, Level A success criteria achieve accessibility by
supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible
limits on presentation. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities
using a wide range of assistive technologies, from voice input and
eye-tracking devices to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able
to access content in different ways. In other words, Level A success
criteria support the ability of both mainstream and specialized user
agents to adapt content to formats that meet their users' needs.

    * The success criteria in Level AA provide additional support for
assistive technology. At the same time, they also support direct
access to content by the many people who use conventional user agents
without assistive technology. In general, Level AA success criteria
place more limits on visual presentation and other aspects of content
than the success criteria in Level A.

    * Level AAA success criteria increase both direct access and
access through assistive technology. They place tighter limits on both
presentation and content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 25:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-920)

"entered" and "exit" should be defined in terms of focus changes

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

We have changed this into a conformance requirement and changed the
wording to be:
 "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."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 26:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-921)

a "small class of input"? any gesture (which is by nature
time-dependent) that requires a mouse by definition cannot be done
with a keyboard. Similarly for a pointing pen (like signing on a
screen). or using a joystick to fly a virtual airplane. I think that
as long as the user clicks with the mouse then that can be reasonably
easy and similarly be implemented with keyboard interaction. Clicks
and movements (like in drag and drop) somewhat less easily and
similarly.

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

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity of the wording.   The SC
wording has been changed to:

2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality of the content is operable through a
keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual
keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that
depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
(Level A)

Note: This exception relates to the underlying function, not the input
technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input
technique (handwriting) requires path dependent input but the
underlying function (text input) does not.

Note: This does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse
input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.

In Understanding 2.1.1, we added:  The phrase "except where the
underlying functionality requires path dependent input" is included to
separate those things that cannot reasonably be controlled from a
keyboard.

Most actions carried out by a pointing device can also be done from
the keyboard (for example, clicking, selecting, moving, sizing).
However, there is a small class of input that is done with a pointing
device that cannot be done from the keyboard in any known fashion
without requiring an inordinate number of keystrokes. Free hand
drawing, watercolor painting, and flying a helicopter through an
obstacle course are all examples of functions that require path
dependent input. Drawing straight lines, regular geometric shapes,
re-sizing windows and dragging objects to a location (when the path to
that location is not relevant) do not require path dependent input.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 27:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/b00f67220606220701j3cf4b22cra57d3dc2fcbf3669@mail.gmail.com
(Issue ID: LC-922)

you say "unless the task requires analog time dep. input". But the
task is defined by the designer and is supported by the GUI. By
definition, if the task requires some mouse based input that is analog
time dependent, then the page succeeds 211.

Proposed Change:

I think you should focus on the concept of "goal" rather than task. A
goal is a desired state of things that a user wants to achieve, and
tasks are the observable actions to achieve the goal. Thus you might
want to say that the goal should be achievable through 1 or more tasks
that do not require analog time dependent gestures. Except when for
that goal there is no other way (like piloting a plane!).

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

We agree with the concept of your comments but chose to address it
with different wording as follows.

Changed SC by adding "underlying" to read
2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality of the content is operable through a
keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual
keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that
depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints.
(Level A)

Note: This exception relates to the underlying function, not the input
technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input
technique (handwriting) requires path dependent input but the
underlying function (text input) does not.

Note: This does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse
input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.

In Understanding 2.1.1, we added: "The phrase "except where the
underlying functionality requires path dependent input" is included to
separate those things that cannot reasonably be controlled from a
keyboard.

Most actions carried out by a pointing device can also be done from
the keyboard (for example, clicking, selecting, moving, sizing).
However, there is a small class of input that is done with a pointing
device that cannot be done from the keyboard in any known fashion
without requiring an inordinate number of keystrokes. Free hand
drawing, watercolor painting, and flying a helicopter through an
obstacle course are all examples of functions that require path
dependent input. Drawing straight lines, regular geometric shapes,
re-sizing windows and dragging objects to a location (when the path to
that location is not relevant) do not require path dependent input.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:34:29 UTC

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