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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:38:11 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171638p7461a3bdvdb17223d9e48b41e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Judy Brewer ,

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/20060622215340.6AFF4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-988)

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

Having an empty Quick Table of Contents is confusing


Proposed Change:

Eliminate the Quick Table of Contents, unless subsections are added so
that a Quick TOC is needed.

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

The guidelines are no longer split into multiple pages, so the quick
TOC is no longer in use.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215712.6C60DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-989)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

It is initially unclear that this comparison table is complex, showing
both correspondences and differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0.



Proposed Change:

Clarify by:
- adding an explanation in the introduction to the comparison table
that this is a complex comparison, showing both the correspondences
and the differences between WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 success
criteria; and
- adding an additional column to the table, identifying whether the
correspondence shown is a parallel reference, a difference, a gap,
etc.

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

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it
will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as
they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the
EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of
transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping
is updated.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622220019.9A084BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-990)

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

People may need to use the comparison table in very different ways,
but the current organization of the mapping table does not easily
allow for that. Also, some users may not initially realize the various
ways it can be helpful, or may misunderstand it as solely as mapping
table, or gap table, etc.


Proposed Change:

Clarify purpose & uses of the table by:

1. Adding a column for keywords, and enable multiple views of the
comparison table, for instance:

  -- sequencing by WCAG 2.0 success criteria

  -- sequencing by WCAG 1.0 checkpoint number

  -- sequencing by level

  -- sequencing by keyword

2. Adding a few very brief use-cases as a mini-introduction, to
highlight what this comparison table can be used for; for example:

  -- if you are currently using WCAG 1.0, and want to see what the
corresponding provision might be in WCAG 2.0;

  -- if you are already using WCAG 2.0, but need to demonstrate
conformance to WCAG 1.0;

  -- if you need to compare what is required under a given priority or
level of conformance;

  -- if you need to find how a certain issue, such as color contrast,
is handled in both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

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

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it
will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as
they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the
EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of
transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping
is updated.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622221000.50F0FBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-991)

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

The title \"Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0\" of this
appendix is unclear; similarly, the heading of the left column is
unclear.



Proposed Change:

Change the title of this appendix to: \"Comparison of WCAG 1.0
Checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria,\" and add a more explicit
heading (e.g. \"WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint\") to the left column.

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

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it
will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as
they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the
EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of
transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping
is updated.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622223644.5BE6866364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-993)

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

The comparison table is complex, and is consequently currently
difficult to read with screen magnification, and also via screen
reader. Simple linearization may not help much because of the
complexity of the table.



Proposed Change:

Add extensive orientation notes to an accessible version. Check
readability with magnification and with speech or braille output.
[Note: an EOWG participant may send more specific suggestions.]

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

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself so that it
will be easier to maintain over time and to reflect new techniques as
they come out. The working group will work in coordination with the
EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of
transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping
is updated.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623015205.CA1F647BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-994)

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

The format of the explanatory text following the success criteria is
difficult to follow, as the linked text is overly marked up with
underline, color, italics (which increase reading difficulty), and
on-hover highlights.


Proposed Change:

Eliminate the italics and possibly also the on-hover highlights.

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

We have removed the italics from the terms and have removed the square
brackets from the links to "How to Meet SC X.X.X." The on-hover
highlights on links are assigned by base.css which is a required W3C
Style.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020038.4285C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-995)

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

It is difficult to understand the logical relationship in success
criteria 1.1.1, because of the \"one of the following\" phrasing.


Proposed Change:

Use the \"at least one of the following\" phrasing from 2.2.1 and
2.5.3; and check for clarity and consistency of logical relationships
throughout the rest of the success criteria.

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

Success Criterion 1.1.1 was reworded. The bullets are now mutually
exclusive, so the term "at least" is no longer necessary.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020602.D5AB747BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-996)

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

The term \"time-out\" (also written as \"timeout\" in the same
section) is not a familiar term for many readers.



Proposed Change:

Add a glossary entry for \"time-out.\"

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

We have updated SC 2.2.1 to use the term "time limit" instead of "time-out".

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023212.54ED733201@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-997)

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

Each time EOWG discusses the baseline concept, there are a number of
concerns raised about potential mis-uses of baseline, and people can
think of a number of scenarios of potential abuse.


Proposed Change:

EOWG recommends adding a much clearer statement of the intent of
baseline into the WCAG 2.0 TR document, so that this can be referenced
in any debates about potential mis-uses or abuses of baseline. EOWG
would be happy to give feedback on draft explanations of the intent.

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

The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The
term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web
technologies". The issue of what it means to be an
accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section
"Accessibility Support of Web Technologies" at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support .

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023433.A625F33201@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-998)

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

In the discussion of baseline and conformance, it seems that there is
potential for misuse of baseline (e.g. authors might be able to just
declare their own level of technology). The actual/potential audience,
not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could
reply on, should define baseline.


Proposed Change:

EOWG recommends that the WCAG WG re-consider the following strategies:
to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Web sites
today, W3C should publish a \'reasonable/realistic\' baseline
recommended for a general audience, outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative
document, with an explanation about why the particular baseline is
recommended; and it should update this recommended baseline annually
or periodically.

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

The conformance section of WCAG2 has been completely rewritten. The
term "baseline" has been replaced by "accessibility-supported Web
technologies". The issue of what it means to be an
accessibility-supported Web technology is addressed in the section
"Accessibility Support of Web Technologies" at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#accessibility-support .

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024606.035F8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-999)

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

The term \"conformance\" is not necessarily a well understood term for
many readers, and its use in the definition of \"normative\" therefore
makes the definition of \"normative\" difficult to understand.


Proposed Change:

Add a definition for conformance, consistent with the definition of
the EOWG definition of \"conforms,\"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html#conform
 to the WCAG 2.0 glossary, and reference it in the definition of \"normative.\"

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

We have added the term to the glossary as follows:

conformance
  satisfying all the requirements of a given standard, guideline or
specification

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024721.819AEDAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1001)

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

The definition for assistive technology is difficult to understand
because it gives the restrictive before the general meaning; also, it
may be too restrictive, in describing legacy assistive technologies
(for instance, some screen readers now are creating their own DOM
separate from the mainstream browser).


Proposed Change:

EOWG recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition. (Note: We
think that this would work *because* your definition of user agent is
broad enough to already cover some of the functions of some assistive
technologies.)

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

We have changed the order of the items in the definition to make the
restriction less confusing. We feel it is important to keep the
restriction that assistive technology depends on a host user agent so
that the success criteria require support for external assistive
technology and can't just be satisfied by mechanisms that are internal
to the user agent. However, we have added a note that host user agents
may provide direct support for users with disabilities.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030816.BDC9933201@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1002)

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

Some of the Glossary items are hard to follow because of the Notes.


Proposed Change:

EOWG recommends integrating the Notes back into the main definitions,
and linking back to the main use of the defined term in the
guidelines.

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

We don't want to change the format away from the format we are using
for definitions, where the definition can substitute for the word or
phrase. We will be adjusting the spacing, however, so that the notes
are tucked up against the definitions rather than looking like they
are separate entities. This also allows the notes to be formatted for
easier understanding for many of the definitions.

Regarding the suggestion to link back to the main use of terms, many
terms are used many times and there isn't really a main use to link
back to.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030938.87E46DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1003)

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

BUG: The caption for each table (guideline number and title) does not
display in Opera 8


Proposed Change:

Please fix.

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

This issue has been resolved.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:38:33 UTC

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