Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Jacques Pyrat ,

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/01b701c67e58$03a71060$0300a8c0@dave
(Issue ID: LC-600)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

As far as I understand http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/#N100C7 (or
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2 which translate it
into point 12 : « CSS layouts, particularly those with
absolutely-positioned elements that are removed from the document
flow, may simply be  prohibited at the highest level. In fact, source
order must match presentation order even at the lowest level. », I
can't agree with that.

Proposed Change:

http://blog.html.it/layoutgala/ shows 40 design based on the same
markup, but with differents visual apparences and ordering. It is
accessible! Accessibility means that the content must be
*understandable* without the CSS, not that it should be presented in
the same order.

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

Failure 1 does not prohibit CSS layouts generally: it only prohibits
CSS layouts that change the meaning of the content. For example,
positioning a navigation bar does not change the mearning of the
content.

We have revised the last sentence of the description of this technique
to make this clearer. It now reads, "Thus, it is important not to rely
on CSS to visually position content in a specific sequence if this
sequence results in a meaning that is different from the
programmatically determined reading order."

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:36:15 UTC