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 16:34:14 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171634o5dc43305ra272ba4733294a51@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Greg Gay" <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Greg Gay ,

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/20060511202531.694EBBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-465)

Item Number: Success Criterion 4.2.1
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
4.2.1 also suggests that the accessible version be the primary
version, with a link to the inaccessible version. In reality that is
never the case, nor would you likely be able convince a
client/developer to use an HTML version of their splash page in favour
of a fancy Flash version

Proposed Change:
Ideally there should be reciprocol links between the two versions.

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

We have moved discussion of alternate versions of content to the
Conformance section of the Guidelines.

"Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered."

We have also added an advisory technique titled, "Providing reciprocal
links between conforming and non-conforming versions."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511202657.E6605BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-466)

Item Number: Success Criterion 4.2.1
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Wording of 4.2.1 is easily misinterpreted.

Proposed Change:
"Where content is presented using a technology that is not in the
baseline,  or is in the baseline but does not meet level 1 success
criteria,  provide reciprocol links between that version and another
version of that same content, with equivalent functionality, that does
meet level 1 success criteria."

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

We have moved discussion of alternate versions of content to the
Conformance section of the Guidelines.

Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered.

We have also added an advisory technique titled, "Providing reciprocal
links between conforming and non-conforming versions."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060515151645.E147A6636B@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-469)

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
There is currently no item number relevant to this comment. Technique
G96 seems to be the only place within the WCAG 2.0 documents that
mentions anything about "relative positioning", or more specifically
use of relative measures. Using relative measures is particularly
important for low vision users who use a browser function to blow up
the text size. It is also important for those using small screens like
PDAs.

Proposed Change:
This requirement seems to fit best under WCAG principle 4, regarding
robust. Perhaps a new guideline 4.1.3, at level 2. something like
"Ensure that content can be resized without losing its symmetry" Then
in the techniques describing the use of relative measures for sizing
block level items, text, images, etc.

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

Although resizing is primarily a user agent function, we have added
new success criteria to address the author's responsibility for
supporting text resizing:

Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality.

Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality and in a way that does not require the user
to scroll horizontally.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511192524.6DF3847BA5@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-531)

Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
There doesn't seem to be a place to comment on the Baseline Document,
so I'll post it here:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/

The potential for many baselines is possible, and each baseline will
have an overall level of accessibility associated with it. For
example, a baseline that includes only HTML 4, is going to be more
universally accessible than a baseline that includes HTML 4, Flash,
Java, and Javascript. For clients or developers using the latter
baseline, we would essentially tell them that if their content made
full use of the Flash, Java, and Javascript accessibility features,
they can comply at Level 2 (hypothetically speaking). But, for a
client who creates the same site that uses the first baseline (HTML 4
only), and has gone to the trouble of creating alternatives for their
Flash,  Java, and Javascript content, will have created a more
accessible site than the site that uses second baseline and does not
have any alternative formats. What motivation would there be for the
developer of the site using the first baseline, if they can just place
all the technologies in the baseline, and forget about creating more
accessible alternative content.

Proposed Change:

The solution to this may be associating some base accessibility value
with a variety of standard baselines, baselines which remain
non-normative, and evolve as technologies evolve.

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

The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The
term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web
technologies". The issue of what it means to be an
accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section "
Accessibility Support of Web Technologies", at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support .

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511193210.21A3447BA5@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-532)

Item Number: Technology assumptions and the
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

For the section prior to ...assumptions and the baseline... which
isn't included in the items that can be commented on.

References are made to Level 1 2 3, then Note 1 that follows refers to
Triple-A conformance. Prior to this though, there has been no mention
of A, AA, AAA confomance rankings.  Novices to the guidelines may not
make the connection if it is not described explicitely. Not until much
further down the page is the association made.

Proposed Change:

Perhaps a note explaining the association, or a reference to an anchor
further down the page would be appropriate here.

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

We have completely rewritten the introduction and the conformance
section, and conformance levels are now defined before they are used.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511194049.172C847BA5@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-533)

Item Number: Technology assumptions and the
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

There is a relatively easy possibility of Level AAA compliance by
virtue of ommision. By default, the vast majority of sites will meet
50% of the level 3 guidelines without trying. The following are
arguably not relevant on most Web sites.

---------------------

Irrelevant for most sites

1.2.5 (w/ no MM)
1.2.6 (w/ no MM)
1.2.7 (w/ no MM)
1.4.3 (use standard B/W)
1.4.4 (with no audio content)
2.1.2 (with no time dependence)
2.2.4 (no timed events)
2.2.5 (no auto updated content)
2.2.6 (no timeout)
2.3.2 (use no flashing components)
2.4.6 (don\'t use tab to create inconsitent tab ordering
3.1.6 (write in an alphabetic language)
3.2.5 (use no auto redirects)
4.2.4 (use only baseline technologies)

---------------------------

Potentially 13 L3 met by omission

So without any extra effort, a site without any of the above
technologies would meet enough level 3 criteria to comply, even though
none of the guidelines are relevant.

Things that could be done relevant to the content of the majority of sites

Relevant to most sites

2.4.5 (use descriptive titles, headings, and labels)
2.4.7 (use breadcrumb links to navigate, and identify location within
a hierarchy)
2.4.8 (use meaningfult link text)
2.5.4 (describe expected input for form fields)
3.1.3 (provide a glossary)
3.1.4 (expand all abbreviations)
3.1.5 (Use low level language)

---------------------------

Potentially 7 L3 relevant to most sites.

Proposed Change:

Perhspa 75% of level 3 items would be more appropriate, or maybe 50%,
which includes at least 4  or 5 items (or maybe all) from the second
list of more common level 3 items.

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

We have changed the definition of Level AAA conformance so that all
Level AAA Success Criteria that apply to the content types used must
be satisfied.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511194643.C7BD247BA5@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-534)

Item Number: Conformance claims
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Re: Conformance notes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/conformance.html#conformance-claims

The Note suggests that the default version of the content displayed
(i.e. Web unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted) is
the one that must comply. This would mean that myself for example, as
a fully able user with no content negotiation enabled, would be forced
to view the most accessible version of a content unit,  despite,
perhaps, a less accessible, more interactive, "flashy" version being
more appropropriate for my needs.

Proposed Change:

I think the second statement (in parentheses) "...one of the
negotiated forms must comply"  makes more sense as the default here,
with perhaps the added note that "...the most accessible version is
easily accessed should the primary version not be accessible".  A
common example is the Flash splash page that includes a link to an
accessible HTML version of the same content.  In the initial
statement  it suggested that as a developer I would have to default to
the HTML version of the page, with a link to the Flash version
instead.  Developers and their clients will not agree to this, but
they will agree to a link that leads to a more accessible version..

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

We have removed discussion of content negotiation and moved
requirements related to alternate versions to the Conformance section
of the Guidelines. The revised conformance criteriaon now reads:


Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511195339.A362647BA5@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-535)

Item Number: Success Criterion 1.2.2
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Guideline 1.2

Guidelines 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 are not mutually exclusive.  Perhaps it
should be,  if an audio description is provided, compliance is at
level 2. If a transcript is provided instead, compliance is at level
1.

1.2.2  "Audio descriptions of video, or... are provided for
prerecorded multimedia."

1.2.3  "Audio descriptions of video are provided for prerecorded multimedia.

Proposed Change:

Drop "Audio descriptions of video" from  1.2.2. Audio description are
relatively difficult to implement, while text transcripts are quite
easy. Leave the transcript at level 1, which is attainable by
everyone, and keep audio descriptions to level 2.

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

SC 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 are indeed not mutually exclusive. If they were, we
couldn't have them both as success criteria. However, making the
change you suggest would remove options for authors at level A.  In
some cases it is easier and/or more effective to provide the full text
alternative.  In other cases it is easier and/or more effective to
provide the audio equivalents. The current wording allows the author
to chose at level A, but does require them to use audio description at
level AA.  Audio description would of course satisfy both level A and
AA if it were provided. Therefore removing Audio Description from
level A would make it harder for authors, not easier since it removes
an option.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511195927.48A1833205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-536)

Item Number: Success Criterion 1.2.7
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Guidelines 1.2.2 and 1.2.7 are not mutually exclusive.

1.2.2 "... a full multimedia text alternative including any
interaction, are provided for prerecorded multimedia."

1.2.7 "For prerecorded multimedia, a full multimedia text alternative
including any interaction is provided

Proposed Change:

Drop 1.2.7 in favour 1.2.1 at level 1, with Audio descriptions removed
in favor of keeping them with 1.2.3 at level 2.

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

Correct. SC 1.2.2 and 1.2.7 are not mutually exclusive. If they were
we could not require both.   The option is provided at Level A.  At
level AA Audio descriptions are required (which would also satisfy
level A). At level AAA the text description is required, which would
be in addition to the audio description required in level AA.  The
working group did not want to require SC 1.2.7 at level A but did want
to have it as an option there and as a level AAA success criterion if
it was not provided at level A.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511200217.4083633205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-537)

Item Number: Success Criterion 1.4.1
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Guideline 1.4

Luminosity Contrast Ratio in its current form appears to be a less
than perfect measure of contrast. For example black text on a white
background is more readable than white text on a black background, yet
both have the same ratio.  In the future as the algorithms for
measuring contrast become better, the suggested 5:1 ratio in 1.4.1,
may no longer be valid.

Proposed Change:

A general statement should be made in the guideline, something like
...use foreground and background colours that provide sufficient
contrast...", and move LCR and the suggested ratio to the techniques
document, where it can be adjusted as measure of contrast become
better defined.

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

The change you propose would make the success criteria untestable.
All success criteria need to be testable to qualify. So we need to
provide specific description of what 'sufficient contrast' is.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/0060511200418.D1BC733205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-538)

Item Number: Success Criterion 1.4.3
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

As suggested for 1.4.1, Luminosity Contrast Ratio in its current form
appears to be a less than perfect measure of contrast. For example
black text on a white background is more readable than white text on a
black background, yet both have the same ratio.  In the future as the
algorithms for measuring contrast become better, the suggested 10:1
ratio in 1.4.1, may no longer be valid.

Proposed Change:

A general statement should be made in the guideline, something like
...use foreground and background colours that provide *high*
contrast...", and move LCR and the suggested ratio to the techniques
document, where it can be adjusted as measure of contrast become
better defined.

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

The change you propose would make the success criteria untestable.
All success criteria need to be testable to qualify. So we need to
provide specific description of what 'sufficient contrast' is.

It is not always true that black text on a white background is more
readable.  For older people and people with impaired vision white on
black is generally more readable because there is less light scatter
(for media opacities) and fewer problems with adaptation levels.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511200749.A05E433205@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-539)

Item Number: Success Criterion 2.2.1    <-- this appears to be a typo
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

I'm not sure about the distinction between 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Does it
mean if there is required time dependant content, such as a reaction
time test, the web unit can not comply at level 3. This could
potentially be an issues, albeit unlikely, if a site were pursuing
Level 2 or 3 conformance, but had a time dependant test, for example.

Proposed Change:

In such a case I would expect an accessibility statement or statement
of scope to exclude the timed test, thus rendering the guideline
irrelevant to a claim of Level 2 or 3 compliance.  2.1.2 sounds like
it may not be enforcable. Perhaps remove it.

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

It is the specific intent that timed content such as timed tests not
be able to conform to this success criterion. The goal is to encourage
the development of other non-time-based forms instead.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511201228.7F4DA33207@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-540)

Item Number: Success Criterion 3.1.5
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Though for public content, guideline 3.1.5 would apply, for non-public
content, such as an online course aimed at a professional audience,
there should be no requirement that it be "lower secondary" .

How will evaluators measure language level. Perhaps using a FOG index
for English. How would they assess across languages, where a FOG index
is not valid? Would lower secondary be too high when an audience is
from a third word country, where reading levels tend to be much lower?
There has to be some acknowledgement of the audience reading the
content. I thought I had suggested in a previous review of a WCAG 2
draft, that audience be worked into the baseline, though I can't find
the specific reference at the moment. I understand that would
complicate things significantly. If not included in the baseline,
there does need to be some way to define the acceptable level of
language for the intended audience.

With regard to including the audience in a measure of readability, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability

Proposed Change:

It might read something like "Where information is aimed at a non
specific audience, for which reading level is unknown....use lower
secondary..."

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

Even specific target audiences may contain people who can understand
the subject matter but have disabilities that make it difficult to
deal with complex text. While reducing the complexity of the text will
help all such people, the success criterion only requires additional
supplementary material that will assist some of those users.

We agree that all computerized readability programs have limitations,
but they can be helpful in providing an easy check for whether the
language used is clearly above or below the lower secondary level.

The working group has no solution to problems of differing literacy
levels, except as this is reflected in the definition of lower
secondary level for different cultures. Low literacy levels as a
result of lack of education, rather than cognitive disabilities, is
outside the charter of the working group.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511201705.12011BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-542)

Item Number: How to Meet Success Criterion 3.1.5
Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

The statement "help people with reading disability"  in the intent
section of the How to meet 3.1.5 section is incorrect. The ability to
comprehend high level language is not related to reading disability.
Reading disability is strictly associated at a more general level with
lessened ability to mentally convert visual textual information, into
verbal auditory information (phonemic awareness). There is no concept
of sematic disability associated with reading disability. By
definition, a person with a reading disability does not have a sematic
processing disability, with normal or above normal intelligence. There
are several references throughout the HowTo document that refer to
reading disability as an inability to understand.  These statements
need to be removed. They are not true  (see: howto 3.1.6). Reading
disability does not affect a person's ability to understand.

Proposed Change:

Remove references to to simplified language being an accomodation for
those with a reading disability.

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

We have revised the descriptions of the benefits of different success
criteria for people with cognitive disabilities by using descriptions
that are based on functional limitations.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Heteronyms &Capitonyms
(Issue ID: LC-543)

Item Number: Success Criterion 3.1.6
Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Is guideline 3.1.6 relevant to alphabetic langauges. I was unable to
determine the meaning of this guideline as it applies to English, or
other alphabetic languages. If it is relevant to alphabetic languages,
examples should be provided, or it should be stated that it applies to
syllabic, or orthographic languages.

Proposed Change:

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

Guideline 3.1.6 is indeed relevant to alphabetic languagues.  Examples
have been added to the "Intent of this success criterion" section of
"How to Meet 3.1.6" to illustrate this. The revised section reads as
follows:

"For example, in the English language heteronyms are words that are
spelled the same but have different pronunciations and meanings, such
as the words desert (abandon) and desert (arid region). Additionally,
in some languages certain characters can be pronounced in different
ways. In Japanese, for example, there are characters like Han
characters(Kanji) which have multiple pronunciations. Screen readers
may speak the characters incorrectly without the information on
pronunciation. When read incorrectly, the content will not make sense
to users."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511202206.8DAC5BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-544)

Item Number: Success Criterion 4.1.1
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

In guideline 4.1.1  does "parsed unambiguosly"  mean "well formed" or
"valid"?  The techniques seem to suggest that markup must be valid,
though you would be hard pressed to find invalid code that disrupts
any relatively recent screen reader's ability to read a Web unit. It
takes severely broken markup to affect accessibility, or specific
types of errors (such as broken table structures). While I am all for
valid markup, it is *not* a requirement for accessibility in most
cases, particularly at level 1. I can see this requirement at level 2
perhaps.

Proposed Change:

What would be appropriate here to have a well formed requirement at
level 1, and valid at level 2. And still this really has to do with
compatibility with future technologies, rather than affects on
accessibility using current technologies.

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

We have reworded SC 4.1.1 to require that content can be parsed without error.

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 17:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060511202433.8FF65BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-545)

Item Number: Success Criterion 4.2.1
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Guideline 4.2.1

This guideline does not read like a guideline (same with 4.2.3),  is
not immediately clear what it means without reviewing the HowTo, and
can be interpreted in different ways (i.e. ...may [also] be, or ...may
[instead] be...). I interpret it first as meaning I can include a link
from the accessible version to the innaccessible version.  In fact it
should be the opposite that is true (and I'm sure based on the howto
that is what was intended), including a link from the innaccessible
version to the accessible one.

Proposed Change:

Ideally there should be reciprocol links between the two versions.

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

We have moved discussion of alternate versions of content to the
Conformance section of the Guidelines, and we have clarified by adding
the following conformance requirement

Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered.

We have also updated the understanding document to clarify situations
when different sufficient techniques would apply.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:35:09 UTC

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