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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (4 of 4)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:37:35 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171637p191a03b0i53fbebea0ac959de@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.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-763)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Instant-messaging applications are not Web content

An instant-messaging application uses two simple glyphs to indicate a
person's instant messaging status. An instant-messaging application is
not Web content. (Yes, I know, it's possible to use the Web as a front
end for instant messaging, as with Google Chat and Meebo. Those are
not applications.)

Proposed Change:

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

The Working Group has changed the example in Failure F26 to, "A
shopping cart uses two simple glyphs to indicate whether an item is
available for immediate shipment.  A check mark indicates that the
item is in stock and ready to ship.  An "x" character indicates that
the item is currently on back order and not available for immediate
shipment.  An assistive technology user could not determine the status
of the current item."


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-764)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Text equivalents

alt="" "" is officially permitted alongside the actually correct alt="""".

Proposed Change:

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

Yes, whitespace alt is permitted because there are situations in which
it is desirable to have a space in the text version of the Web page
where the image is located, for instance to act as a separator between
words that in some designs would otherwise run together in the text
version. To our knowledge, assistive technologies treat whitespace and
null alternative text equivalently, and this is known to be a
widespread practice that we do not have the justification to limit.
However, we do recommend the use of null alt text preferentially,
which is mentioned in the applicable techniques H67, F38 and F39.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-765)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Incorrect CSS or usage

The Techniques document gives incorrect CSS in places, or simply gives
 unrealistic examples that don't match the practices of
standards-compliant developers.

/* Rules for bidi */
HEBREW, HE-QUO {direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed}
ENGLISH {direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed}
/* Rules for presentation */
HEBREW, ENGLISH, PAR {display: block}
EMPH  {font-weight: bold}

Each of those class names must begin with a dot (e.g., .HEBREW), and
all-lower-case is preferred, as XML documents have  [3]case-sensitive
CSS parsing.

Proposed Change:

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

The syntax errors have been removed.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-766)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Incorrect CSS or usage

The Techniques document gives incorrect CSS in places, or simply gives
 unrealistic examples that don't match the practices of
standards-compliant developers.


  http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"">http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"">






... document body...

  body bgcolor="""" is an incorrect usage; that's what we have CSS
for. (Same for body color="""" later.) Note that the DOCTYPE URL is
mangled.

Proposed Change:

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

Since it is possible to claim conformance to WCAG 2.0 using only HTML,
these examples are appropriate here. We have added additional title
information to each example to make the distinction between the
technologies in use more clear. Also note that each example clearly
states that the code examples listed represent a failure of 1.4.1.

While not required for conformance, the future technique titled,
"Using CSS styles to change or enhance the presentation of structure"
will include information about best practices in using CSS.

Also, the DOCTYPE URL typo you mentioned has been fixed.




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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-767)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Procedure

1. Examine the code of the Web unit.
2. Check to see if a foreground color is specified.
3. Check to see if a background color is specified.

Colours may have been specified in preceding selectors. The C in
"CSS" does stand for "cascading," after all. As written, this
technique authorizes pedants to write in and complain that not  every
single element has foreground and background colours  explicitly
stated. They don't have to be.

Proposed Change:

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

We have added the following note to clarify this:

Note: Color and background color may be specified at any level in the
cascade of preceding selectors, by external stylesheets or through
inheritance rules.

We have also added a link to "Assigning property values, Cascading,
and Inheritance"
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#inheritance) to related
resources)

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-768)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Trivial examples

One of the most common examples of using inconsistent labels for
components with the same function is to use a button that says
"search" in one page and to use a button that says "find" on  another
page when they both serve the identical function.

And the words have identical meaning.

Proposed Change:

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

Trivial examples can still be helpful if they illustrate the issue.
Since the words are being used with identical meaning, there is no
reason to change the word from page to page, which requires a person
to think about whether they are being used identically.  Using
inconsistent labels also makes it harder for a person to jump to the
button quickly if his user agent provides quick methods for navigating
to controls by searching for their name.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-769)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Failure Example 4:

An E-commerce application uses a printer icon that allows the user to
print receipts and invoices. In one part of the application, the
printer icon is labeled ""Print receipt"" and is used to print
receipts, while in another part it is labeled ""Print invoice"" and
is used to print invoices. The labeling is consistent (""Print x""),
but the labels are different to reflect the different functions of
the icons. Therefore, this example does not fail the success
criterion.

So why is it in there?

Proposed Change:

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

Thanks for catching this. The purpose of examples 3 and 4 was to
clarify the difference between consistent and identical labels, but it
is confusing to include positive examples in a Failure. We have
corrected the label of Example 4, and moved both Example 3 and Example
4 to the examples section of Success Criterion 3.2.4.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-770)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Testing in browsers

The blink value of the text-decoration property is not supported by
Internet Explorer. For Windows or Mac? It is supported in
Netscape/Mozilla family browsers. Not tested in others (e.g., Safari,
Opera). And why wasn't it tested in those "others"?

Proposed Change:

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

The Working Group does not have the resources to test all techniques
in all operating systems, user agents and available assistive
technologies, but welcomes any assistance in testing and documentation
of these issues for future drafts.    When information is available it
is provided in the  User Agent and Assistive Technology Support Notes
section.   This technique has been updated to specify the operating
system used for testing and now reads:

The blink element is not supported by Internet Explorer 6 in Windows.
It is supported in Netscape/Mozilla family of user agents and Opera on
Windows.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-772)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

On a page with moving or scrolling content,
1. Check that a mechanism is provided in the Web unit or user agent to
pause moving or scrolling content.
2. Use the pause mechanism to pause the moving or scrolling content.
3. Check that the moving or scrolling has stopped and does not restart
by itself.
4. Check that a mechanism is provided in the Web unit or user agent to
restart the paused content.
5. Use the restart mechanism provided to restart the moving content.
6. Check that the movement or scrolling has resumed from the point
where it was stopped.

But the Understanding document uses an example of a stock ticker: A
stock ticker has "pause" and "restart" buttons. Pausing the ticker
causes it to pause on the current stock. Restarting causes the ticker
to jump ahead to the current stock. Stocks that were updated during
the pause will not be displayed. So which is it: Once you resume you
have to start from where you paused, or can you skip what you missed?

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

Thank you for pointing out that this example does not meet SC 2.2.3.
It has been modified.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.co
(Issue ID: LC-773)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

CSS defines the blink value for the text-decoration property. When
used, it causes any text in elements with this property to blink at a
predetermined rate. This cannot be interrupted by the user, nor can it
be disabled as a user-agent preference.

User stylesheets would seem to be useless in this regard, as they do
not permit the rewriting of selectors. However, User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines [4] Checkpoint 3.3 requires the ability to
toggle blinking text. This appears to be a user-agent problem, in
whole or in part.

Proposed Change:

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

The Working Group agrees that the ability to stop blink should be
provided by user agents. However, real accessibility problems occur
when user agents fail to do this, and this is a widespread problem.
Therefore a failure technique to cover this situation was included in
WCAG. Failures, like techniques, are non-normative, and can be easily
changed when user agents catch up. If in the future user agents do
provide this functionality as required by UAAG, the author's
responsibility to do this in order to ensure conformance to this SC
would be absolved, and we can update our techniques.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-774)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Examples of text streams that are not captions include... subtitles
that do not include important sounds

No "subtitles" are "captions." By implication, this technique permits
subtitling into a foreign language as long as non-speech information
is included.

Proposed Change:

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

We have changed "subtitles that do not include important sounds" to
"text that contains the dialog (possibly simplified dialog) but that
does not describe important sounds" in F8.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-775)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Procedure

          1. View the material with captioning turned on.
          2. Check that all dialog is accompanied by a caption.
          3. Check that all important sounds are captioned.

And how does a deaf person do this?

Proposed Change:

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

They can't. These are some tests that have to be done by people with
particular skills and abilities. That does not affect the
accessibility of the content. (This also happens in other areas as
well. For example, a blind person cannot tell if there is meaningful
content that has been marked decorative either.)

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-776)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Procedure

1. Using a keyboard, navigate through the content.
2. Check to see that the keyboard focus is not ""trapped"" and it is
possible to move keyboard focus out of the plug-in content without
closing the user agent or restarting the system.

What if this depends on the user agent, as it so often does? What if
nothing the author can do will ever permit the user to escape from the
trapping content? (This was a real example with accessible Flash.)

Proposed Change:

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

If there's nothing an author can do to prevent this behavior, then the
content will fail this success criterion and can not meet WCAG 2.0.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-777)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

Failure due to opening new windows when the user does not expect
them. New windows take the focus away from what the user is reading
or doing. This is fine when the user has interacted with a piece of
user interface and expects to get a new window, such as an options
dialogue. The failure comes when pop-ups appear unexpectedly.
Actually, WCAG 2 [5]bans all popup windows without explicit alert
beforehand (though at Level 3).

Proposed Change:

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

It is intentional that WCAG 2.0 bans all popup windows without
explicit alert beforehand at Level AAA.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-778)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

A user clicks on a link, and a new window appears. The original link
has no associated text saying that it will open a new window. [...]
Check if elements that open new windows have associated text saying
that will happen. The text can be displayed in the link, or available
through a hidden association such as an HTML title attribute.

target="_blank" is programmatically determinable and it is up to the
user agent to warn the user. JavaScript is another story and should be
addressed by the Techniques.

Proposed Change:

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

You are correct that target="_blank" is programmatically determinable,
but the working group does not feel that it is sufficient for a
content provider to rely on this feature to satisfy  SC 3.2.5.  It is
intentional that WCAG 2.0 bans all popup windows without explicit
alert beforehand at Level AAA.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-779)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

A user clicks on the body of a page and a new window appears. No
indication that the area that was clicked has functionality is
present.

If that area were marked up as a or indeed as area, such warning  is
programmatically determinable and it is up to the user agent to  warn
the user.

Proposed Change:

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

We are in agreement. If the area were marked up as you have indicated,
there would be an indication that the area has functionality and this
failure condition would not apply. We welcome suggestions for ways in
which we could improve the wording of the example to make this
clearer.
We replaced the second sentence with "The page has no visible
indication that the area is functional."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-780)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

The objective of this technique is to show how using a non-text mark
to convey information can make content difficult to comprehend. A
non-text mark may be non-text content such as an image, or a font
glyph which is not text nor an image of text.

Font glyphs are text. This whole section is nonsense.

Proposed Change:

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

We have changed the title of the failure to use the term "graphical
symbol" rather than non-text mark and updated the description to
include non-text marks that are images.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.60.0605231711400.14640@aristotle.multipattern.com
(Issue ID: LC-781)

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0121

The objective of this technique is to describe how using blank
characters, such as space, tab, line break, or carriage return, to
format individual words visually can be a failure to present
meaningful sequences properly. Blank characters have no appearance
when rendered visually

Yes, they do. They're blank!

Proposed Change:

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

Thanks for pointing this out.  We have dropped the sentence so that it
reads "The objective of this technique is to describe how using blank
characters, such as space, tab, line break, or carriage return, to
format individual words visually can be a failure to present
meaningful sequences properly. When blank characters are inserted to
control letter spacing within a word, they may change the
interpretation of the word or cause it not to be programmatically
recognized as a single word."
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:38:02 UTC

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