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

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:34:47 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171634h96645e0j12ca1e4d014cecf2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Greg Lowney" <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 30:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1175)

Definition of ACRONYM is defined incorrectly as an "abbreviation made
from the initial letters", but it should be "abbreviation made from
non-contiguous letters of a name or phrase". These are usually the
initial letters, but not always; the name being abbreviated is usually
made up of more than one word, but not always; and the acronym
sometimes contains extra letters that don't occur in the original
phrase, but are added in to aid in pronunciation.

Proposed Change:

Change to "abbreviation made from non-contiguous letters of a name or phrase".

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

We have revised the definition to read, "abbreviated form made from
the initial letters or parts of other words (in a name or phrase)
which may be pronounced as a word."


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 31:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1176)

Definition of ALTERNATE VERSION is defined using the term
"functionality", which should be a link to that definition.

Proposed Change:

Make the word "functionality" a link to that definition.

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

The draft has been updated as proposed.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 32:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1177)

Definition of API is defined as "definitions of how communication may
take place between applications", but that should be "between
application or software components", as most API are used between
components that are not applications, and we don't want to limit our
discussion to only those API that are between one application and
another.

Proposed Change:

Change to "definitions of how communication may take place between
applications or software components".

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

Application Programming Interface (API) is now defined:
"definitions of how communication may take place between applications".

See http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#apidef .

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 33:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1178)

Definition of ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY is defined as "a user agent that:
1... 2 ..."; in all cases where a list of criteria is presented, it
should be made explicit whether the relationship between the elements
in the list is AND or OR.

Proposed Change:

Change "a user agent that:" to "a user agent that both:".
Change "monitoring APIs." to "monitoring APIs, and".

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

The draft has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 34:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1179)

Definition of AUTHORED UNIT should be reviewed to make sure that it
agrees, at a technical level, with the committee's intention.
Currently it seems ambiguous about whether a Web unit is one type of
authored unit, or whether an authored unit must consist of more than
one Web units. Similarly, it is ambiguous about whether a subset of
the content on a Web unit (e.g. a paragraph) written by a separate
author than the surrounding content, is an authored unit. Finally, it
clearly implies that a set of Web units written by multiple authors
but intended to be used together as a set would not be an authored
unit. Are those all correct interpretations?

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

We have reformulated the success criteria and glossary to remove both
"authored unit" and "authored component" from the guidelines.

3.2.2 On Input: Changing the setting of any user interface component
does not automatically cause a change of context unless the user has
been advised of the behavior before using the component.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 35:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1180)

Definition of CONTENT currently reads ""information to be communicated
to the user by means of a user agent"" and has a Note which reads
""This includes the code and markup that define the structure,
presentation, and interaction, as well as text, images, and sounds
that convey information to the end-user."".

Content is defined as being limited to ""information"", but the
definition of ""information"" seems to exclude purely decorative
elements and elements who purpose is to create a specific sensory
experience; both of those are distinguished from informational content
in the document, but seem to clearly be part of the content. That
should be acknowledged here.

(Content also include controls whose purpose is to gather input from
the user, but I guess we don't need to call those out since they must
also have some presentation.)

Similarly, the Note seemt to say that scripts included in a Web page
are part of the content, but these don't fit into the definition of
""information"" as they might respond to user input or other triggers,
without having any presentation of their own. Thus, the Note seems to
contradict the definitions themselves.

It is unfortunate that the document defines ""information"", ""purely
decorative elements"", and content ""designed to create a specific
sensory experience"" as mutually exclusive, with no term that
currently includes them all. I believe that ""content"" should be that
term, but it would require broadening the definition of ""content""
beyond just ""information"" or broadening the definition of
""information"".

Proposed Change:

Change to "information and decorative or sensory elements to be
communicated to the user by means of a user agent, as well as code or
markup that define the stucture, presentation, and interactions
associated with those elements".

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

We have updated the definition, but have used slightly different
wording. The definition now reads, "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 36:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1181)

Definition of INITIALISM should make it clear that initialisms are not
pronounced as words; if they are, they would be acronyms instead of
initialisms. (At least, that's how I've heard it explained.)

Proposed Change:

Add "Note: Initialisms are generally read as strings of individual
letters rather than being pronounced as words."

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

The draft has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 37:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1182)

Definition of LUMINOSITY CONTRAST RATIO assumes that the foreground is
text, but one success criterion applies it to non-text content such as
diagrams.

Proposed Change:

Replaced both occurances of "text" with "foreground" in the definition.

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

We have updated the definition as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 38:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1183)

Definition of LUMINOSITY CONTRAST RATIO assumes that the foreground
and background are both solid colors; it is unclear how this would be
applied when that is not the case, such as when the background is a
gradient or image, or when the foreground consists of many colors. A
particularly interesting case is when the foreground is anti-aliased,
causing different pixels to be different brightness (or, in the case
of Microsoft's ClearType technology, even different colors) but all
designed to be perceived as a single brightness of a single color.

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

Thank you, the definition of contrast has been updated to address your
concerns.  The new definition text is:

contrast ratio
     (L1 + 0.05) / (L2 + 0.05), where

        * L1 is the relative luminance of the lighter of the
foreground or background colors, and
        * L2 is the relative luminance of the darker of the foreground
or background colors.

    Note 1: Contrast ratios can range from 1 to 21 (commonly written
1:1 to 21:1).
    Note 2: For dithered colors, use the average values of the colors
that are dithered (average R, average G, and average B).
    Note 3: Text can be evaluated with anti-aliasing turned off.
    Note 4: Background color is the specified color of content over
which the text is to be rendered in normal usage. If no background
color is specified, then white is assumed.
    Note 5: For text displayed over gradients and background images,
authors should ensure that sufficient contrast exists for each part of
each character in the content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 39:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1184)

Definition of NATURAL LANGUAGE is "language used by humans to
communicate", but this is so broad that Fortran would be included, as
it is a way humans communicate with software.

Proposed Change:

Change to read "language used by humans to communicate with one another".

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

The guidelines now use "human language" instead of "natural language".
The definition of human language is "language that is spoken, written
or signed (visually or tactilely) by humans to communicate with one
another".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 40:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1185)

Definitions of TEXT and NON-TEXT CONTENT is ambiguous about whether an
image of text is text or non-text content. Please add clarification.
This is a problem because most success criteria are written assuming
that "text" is parsable by assistive technology (i.e. not just a
picture of characters) (e.g. "text alternatives"), but others seem to
only require that "text" be readable by humans (i.e. it can be just an
image of characters) (e.g. captions on DVDs).

Proposed Change:

Add to the definition of non-text content, "Note: This includes images
of words and characters that may look like text when viewed with human
sight but are not programmatically accessible."

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

The definition of text and non-text have been changed to remove any
ambiguity that the text must be programmatically determinable (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#textdef and
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#non-text-contentdef ).

text
    sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined,
where the sequence is expressing something in human language


non-text content
    any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be
programmatically determined or where the sequence is not expressing
something in human language

    Note: This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters)
and leetspeak (which is character substitution). .




----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 41:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1186)

Definition of PRESENTATION says "rendering of the content and
structure in a form that can be perceived by the user". This is not
technically correct, as (a) it could render just the content, not the
structure, (b) it is a form *designed* to be perceived by *a* user.
With the current definition, if the user is blind, nothing on the
display counts as presentation.

Proposed Change:

Change to read "rendering of the content and structure in a form
designed to be perceived by the user".

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

The definition has been changed to: "rendering of the content in a
form to be perceived by users".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 42:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1187)

Definitions of GENEAL FLASH THRESHOLD and RED FLASH THRESHOLD each
have three criteria, the first of which is a combined area of flashes
occurring concurrently and occupying more than one quarter of any 341
x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the
content is viewed at 1024 x 768. Isn't that just another way of saying
one quarter of any rectangle that's 1/3 of the screen high and 1/3 of
the screen wide? Wouldn't the latter be sound less confusing and
easier to test on non-1024x768 screens?

Proposed Change:

In both GENERAL FLASH THRESHOLD and RED FLASH THRESHOLD, change list
item 1 to read "the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently
(but not necessarily contiguously) occupies more than one quarter of
any rectangular region that is one third of the screen high and one
third of the screen wide".

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

Screen size is not what determines the size of the analysis window. it
is angle of view area.  So, we have changed the provision to state
this and provided the information on what is a good estimate for
general Web content as a note.

2.3.1 Three Flashes or Threshold: Content does contain anything that
flashes more than three times in any one second period, or the flash
is below the general flash threshold and the red flash threshold.

2.3.2 Three Flashes: Content does not contain anything that flashes
more than three times in any one second period.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#seizure

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 43:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1188)

Definitions of GENEAL FLASH THRESHOLD and RED FLASH THRESHOLD, it
might be worth noting, will eventually need to be revised when OLED
technology allows for increasing use of very large, animated displays.
Picture one big OLED display replacing the sign board in the lobby of
a major office building, listing all the businesses and their
locations; in this case the user will be focusing their attention on
one small area of the large sign, but close enough to read the text
easily. In that case, the entire area the user is looking at might be
flashing, but it still would not be 1/3 of the screen high and 1/3 of
the screen wide.)

Proposed Change:

In both GENERAL FLASH THRESHOLD and RED FLASH THRESHOLD, append to
list item 1, "or designed to occupy a region larger than 6" by 6" on
the intended physical display".

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

Screen size is not what determines the size of the analysis window. It
is angle of view area. So, we have changed the provision to state this
and provided the information on what is a good estimate for general
web content as a note.

If the author KNOWS that a larger screen or viewing distance will be
used (for example a very large display in a lobby) then they can
calculate the size of the area in pixels that they should analyze.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 44:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1189)

Definition of SPECIFIC SENSORY EXPERIENCE could use an example to help
readers understand it. I find it hard to come up with an example that
one couldn't argue also performs a function, even if that function is
creating a specific sensory experience.

Proposed Change:

Add "Example: A Web site advertising a horror-themed game plays subtly
disturbing music in order to make the user feel a sense of immersion
in the theme." (However, one could argue that such music "performs a
function" in this case.)

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

The following has been added to the definition.
"Examples include a performance of a flute solo, works of visual art etc. "

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 45:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001501c59b26$aaec1bb0$6800a8c0@lucky13
(Issue ID: LC-1191)

Definition of USER AGENT is "any software that retrieves and renders
Web content for users". In several places it is emphasized that this
includes assistive technology, but this definition seems to exclude
many types of assistive technology such as speech recognition used for
command-and-control, which neither retrieves nor renders, but does
rely on access to the information being rendered. Also, the word
"retrieves" seems to imply fetching from some remote source (e.g. over
the Web), which would exclude screen readers; on the other hand,
"retrieves" could be taken to mean getting the data from anywhere,
including from another user agent, but by that interpretation a
display driver would count as assistive technology.

Proposed Change:

Change to read "any software that retrieves and renders Web content
for users, or manipulates such content to assist the user in using the
Web content or controls"

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

The current wording is taken from UAAG and the proposed wording is not
sufficiently different to warrant changing the UAAG definition. Most
of what was added could be interpreted as part of rendering the
content.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:35:22 UTC

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