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 4)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:37:14 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171637o26334e0am7ef04e9253f31405@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Comment 1:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-782)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Endorsement of "non-W3C technologies"

A deficiency of WCAG 1 was its chauvinism toward anything not invented
by the W3C. They pretty much didn't want you to use any "non-W3C
technologies"; there's a whole [3] guideline telling you not to. WCAG
2 tries to be technology-neutral. In so doing, it authorizes the use
of "HTML" that was never ratified by a specification, notably embed.

While this is the only reliable method to include multimedia on a Web
 page (still, in 2006), is univerally understood by graphical
browsers, and can easily be made legal via a custom DTD, it still
isn't real HTML. I find its inclusion curious given WAI's ideology of
yore. (Elsewhere, the Understanding document lists the blink element
as a failure method. That isn't real HTML either, thankfully.)

  3. http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-use-w3c

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

WCAG 2.0 was carefully written to be technology neutral and to allow
non-W3C technologies to be used.  As you noted, the guideline talking
about using W3C technolgies is from WCAG 1.0 not WCAG 2.0.  It was one
of the aspects of WCAG 1.0 that we specifically did not bring forward.

With regard to embed,  as you point out, "this is the only reliable
method to include multimedia on a Web page (still, in 2006), is
univerally understood by graphical browsers".  This is why it is
included.  It is one example of non-W3C technology. The guidelines
allow a wide range of others.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-783)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Device-independence?

A Web page has a field that automatically updates with the latest
headlines in a rotating fashion. There is a slider that allows the
user to slow the update rate by as much as 10.

A slider? That requires a mouse, not to mention full vision.

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

The example in How to meet 2.2.1 has been changed to:

A Web page has a field that automatically updates with the latest
headlines in a rotating fashion. There is an interactive control that
allows the user to extend the length of time between each update to as
much as 10 times the default. The control can be operated with either
a mouse or a keyboard.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-784)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Time limits

In circumstances where a sign-language interpreter may be relating
audio content to a user who is deaf, control over time limits is also
important.

Then that isn't an issue of Web content anymore. Hiring a human aide
to make a site accessible to you is no longer our problem.

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

Using a human aide is similar in this instance to using a screen reader,
in that it is an accommodation that may cause the user to need more
time. Therefore, we think it is an appropriate benefit for the time
limits success criterion.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-785)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Flashing (but not blinking)

A movie with a scene involving very bright lightning flashes is
scripted so that the lightning only flashes two times.

Yes, WAI wants you to rewrite your script.

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

The example has been rewritten to avoid the implication that this
criterion would require rewriting a script. The example now reads:

A movie with a scene involving very bright lightning flashes is edited
so that the lightning only flashes three times in any one second
period.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-786)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Text alternatives

[INS: [For n] :INS] on-text content that is multimedia... it is
important that users know what it is when they encounter it on a  page
so they can decide what action if any they want to take with it. A
text alternative that describes the multimedia and/or gives its title
is therefore provided.

How do I do that with, say, embed, which permits no fallback content?
(Of course there's noembed, but, since all graphical  browsers
understand embed, noembed content will never be  displayed. In any
event, there is no actual or official  specification for embed and
especially noembed.) Does this not mean I have to label each video in
plain text?

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

We have moved the technique on using noembed with embed to advisory.
General techniques are available which describe alternative methods on
providing text alternatives for EMBED.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-787)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Text alternatives

Providing what description is possible is also desired. If the intent
of the author in creating the content - or the intent of the  page
author in putting the content on the page - is known and can  be
described, this is also very useful

"Intent of the page author"? What is this talking about?

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

We have updated that paragraph to remove references to "intent of the
page author".


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-788)

Comment:

Text alternatives

Linking to live textual information, e.g., if it is a traffic  Webcam,
linking to a site that provides textual traffic reports

If my Webcam is pointed out my window and depicts my obscure street or
intersection, exactly how am I going to locate a traffic-report site
that covers my neighbourhood? And how is that actually "equivalent"
given that a sighted visitor can watch  traffic in real time, while a
"textual traffic report" has to be  written and published post-facto
and can never keep up?

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

We agree that it would not be practical to provide a live textual
equivalent to your personal webcam that is providing a view of your
neighborhood streets. It might be possible, however, for a
municipality to provide a link to traffic reports which are useful to
users who can't see the webcam image. Since it is not correct to call
a regional traffic report an "equivalent" for a webcam of a particular
intersection, however, we have changed the title of this technique to
be more accurate.

Note also that this is an advisory technique. It is not in any way
required by WCAG. It is just something extra that people can do to
make things more accessible where it applies.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-789)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Text alternatives

And now, the biggest failure of the section on text equivalents.  I've
been warning WCAG Working Group about this topic for years. The fact
that the following example made it this far into the  writing process
demonstrates that the Working Group simply will  not accept reality.

A data chart: A bar chart compares how many widgets were sold in
June, July, and August. The short label says, "Figure one - Sales in
June, July and August." The longer description identifies the type of
chart, provides a high-level summary of the data comparable to that
available from the chart, and provides the data in a table. It is
obviously a lost cause to try to explain to WCAG that diagrams and
data are not interchangeable. We create diagrams because data are too
hard to understand. To use an analogy over again, diagrams and data
are like a suitcase that can be unpacked but not easily repacked. If
data were understandable by themselves, we wouldn't make a chart. I
can assure the Working Group that giving nondisabled people a really
nice chart and disabled people a table with 10,000 or more data points
does not constitute equality in any sense. Moreover, some data can be
understood only if transformed (as by plotting on a logarithmic
scale), which is the sort of thing that simply  cannot be expressed
understandably in numbers. I am aware that the National Braille
Association has authorized WAI to publish parts of its training manual
concerning the  rendition of charts and graphs in audiobooks. I have
seen no  evidence that those techniques are viable on the Web. Given
that  they seem to work fine for audiobooks, I would be interested to
see any such evidence.

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

The working group agrees that it may not always be possible or
practical to provide access to the data. We also require a long
description for this type of chart. We did not however mention that in
the example - and that was an oversight. We have updated the example
text to explain that a high-level summary of the data and applicable
trends is provided in the long description.

The example has been revised as follows:
A bar chart compares how many widgets were sold in June, July, and
August. The short label says, "Figure one - Sales in June, July and
August." The longer description identifies the type of chart, provides
a high-level summary of the data, trends and implications comparable
to those available from the chart. Where possible and practical, the
actual data is provided in a table.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-790)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Multimedia

People who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or who are having trouble
understanding audio information for any reason can read the text
presentation or (in the future) have it translated and presented as
sign language by assistive technology.

No such vapourware technologies of text-to-sign translation will be
available and reliable during the lifetime of WCAG 2. (If you think
otherwise, here's something for you: Can you make it work in Quebec
Sign Language?)

Similarly:

Captions may be generated using real-time text translation service
(stenographic or, in the future, speech-to-text with corrections).

Who's gonna do those corrections (in real time, no less)? And at what
point in the "future" will this be developed? The existing technique
of speaker-dependent speech recognition, known as  voicewriting, could
be included here if defined properly.

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

We have updated these notes as follows:

"People who are deaf, are hard of hearing, or who are having trouble
understanding audio information for any reason can read the text
presentation. Research is ongoing regarding automatic translation of
text into sign language."

"Captions may be generated using a real-time text translation
service." (removed parenthetical)

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-791)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Providing open captions that are embedded directly in the video stream

"Embedded"? As by using embed?  What are they trying to get at here?
Burned-in open captions (a nice, easy, understandable terminology that
could be used) or encoded captions that always display even if the
viewer doesn't want them (a much rarer case, similar to forced
subtitles on DVD)?

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

We changed the wording from "Providing open captions that are embedded
directly in the video stream" to "Providing open (always visible)
captions"

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-792)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Providing closed captions using any readily-available media format
that has a video player that is free of charge and supports closed
captioning

Funny... Jaws isn't free. Why are we restricted to the usage of free
players when accessibility software in other contexts is expensive?

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

We have removed, "is free of charge and" from item 3 of SC 1.2.4

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-793)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

I appreciate the fact that my work is cited in this document -
[4]Best Practices in Online Captioning and [5]Standard Techniques in
Audio Descriptions (sic - it's actually singular). I note, though,
that the only contributors to these "Related Resources" that merit a
real byline are the National Braille Association and... Gregg
Vanderheiden, dear coleader of the WCAG Working Group

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

The title has been corrected. All author names have been removed from
resource references.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-794)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

+ An audio file begins playing automatically when a page is opened.
However, the audio can be stopped by the user by selecting a "silent"
link at the top of the page.

+ An audio file begins playing automatically when a page is opened.
However, the audio can be stopped by the user by  selecting a "silent"
link at the top of the page.

Why does this section not cover the more typical scenario, a Flash
splash page with sound that plays and then stops, or that plays and
can be turned off only by a hard-to-find control, often at the bottom
of the page? (I've also seen such controls appear only after the sound
has finished playing.)

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

We have added examples with Flash player - using approaches that would
fit in section on examples of how to do this as follows:

- A Flash splash page with sound that plays and then stops in less
than 3 seconds.
- A Flash splash page with sound that plays automatically includes a
control at the top that allows users to turn the sound off.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-795)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

A sequence is meaningful if the order of content in the sequence
cannot be changed without affecting its meaning. The order of words
in sentences and sentences in paragraphs, for instance, is always
meaningful.

Not in free-word-order languages, though many of those do tend to
converge on certain preferred word orders.

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

We have removed the sentence about word order because that subject was
not intended to be covered by 'How to Meet Success Criterion 1.3.3'.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-796)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Ensure that numerals or other look alike glyphs are not used in place of letters

There goes your l33tspeak, h4xorz! (\/\/C4G iz teh sux0r  @nyw@y111oneoneone)

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

The working group does not consider leetspeak to be accessible. We
have moved the advisory technique from SC 1.3.4 to SC 1.1.1, where it
was changed into the following techniques and failures:
* Failure of SC 1.1.1 due to using look-alike glyphs to represent text
without providing a text alternative.
* Providing text alternatives for strings where look-alike glyphs are
used in place of letters (e.g. Leetspeak).
* Failure of SC 1.1.1 due to using ASCII art without providing a text
alternative.
* Providing text alternatives for ASCII art.

We have also updated the note to the definition of non-text content so
that it reads: 'This includes ASCII Art, which is a pattern of
characters, and leetspeak, which is character substitution.'

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-797)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Failure of SC 1.3.5 due to using a non-text mark alone to convey information

Note: Glyphs are non-text marks.
This is insane. Unicode [6]defines glyph as:

1. An abstract form that represents one or more glyph images.
2. A synonym for glyph image. In displaying Unicode character data,
one or more glyphs may be selected to depict a particular character.

In Web content, glyphs are text marks.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/07/10-wcag-teamc-minutes#item06 Michael
to propose additional information about what glyphs are and are not,
and what would be relevant to to this failure condition

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

The definition of a "glyph" includes representations of text
characters, punctuation, and pictorial and decorative character
symbols. It was not the intention to exclude text representations. The
title of the failure has been modified to refer instead to "graphical
symbols", the note has been removed, and the description in F26 has
been modified to clarify this point.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711220.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-798)

Comment:

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0120.html

Using an image for "0m" (circle mark) or "�" (cross mark) instead of
text and providing alternative text for the image which describes the
meaning of its mark

Those circle and cross marks are text. Even the Understanding
document itself uses them as such. (The "cross mark" is incorrectly
chosen. What is depicted is a [7]multiplication  symbol.) WAI may wish
to look at Unicode characters like U+2611 BALLOT BOX WITH CHECK.

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

We have reworded the technique title to distinguish between an image
of a graphical symbol and a font glyph that happens to have the same
appearance but a different meaning.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:37:39 UTC

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