Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Johannes Koch ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 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, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly

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 . Please see 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:

(Issue ID: LC-654)

Part of Item: Common Failures
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

While there are two HTML techniques about labeling form
controls--\"H44 (Using label elements to associate text labels with
form controls)\" and \"H65 (Using the title attribute to identify form
controls when the label element cannot be used)\"--there is no common
failure about _not_ labeling form controls. This also applies to

Proposed Change:

Add a common failure about not labeling form controls.

Response from Working Group:

SC 4.1.2 and SC 1.1.1 require that form controls have names. The name
may be provided in a way that is not a (visible) label.

SC 1.3.1 requires that if a form control has a label, then the
association between the label and the form control can be
programmatically determined.

To encourage the use of labels when appropriate, we have added an
advisory technique to SC 1.3.1 and SC 4.1.2:

Providing labels for all form controls that do not have implicit
labels (future link)

Comment 2:

(Issue ID: LC-655)

Part of Item: Common Failures
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

While there are common failures about _inappropriate_ text
alternatives (F30) and omitting the alt attribute _for decorative
non-text content_, namely img and applet per test procedure (F38),
there is no common failure about not having a text alternative for
img, area, input[@type=\'image\'] in general (alt attribute).

If there is no alt attribute, F30 does not apply. If the non-text
content is not decorative only, F38 does not apply.

applet and object is a different case. As the text alternative is the
text content of these elements (or in case of applet the alt
attribute), there is always at least an empty text alternative.

Proposed Change:

Add a common failure about omitting the alt attribute for img, area,
input[@type=\'image\'] in general.

Response from Working Group:

We have added a failure technique as you suggested.

Comment 3:

(Issue ID: LC-656)

Part of Item: Applicability
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

I think it could be helpful for a web developer and evaluator to have
the HTML techniques/failures sorted by what the techniques/failures
are about, e.g. specific elements like img, area, etc. or concepts
like lists, data tables, etc.

Proposed Change:

Add a list of HTML techniques/failures sorted by e.g. specific
elements or concepts.

Response from Working Group:

We agree. This is the purpose of the Application notes that are
planned: to provide summaries that look at topics across the success
criteria.   If you are interested in helping with these please let us
know. These are a future component that will be developed in
conjunction with the Education and Outreach Working Group.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:37:59 UTC