- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:39:51 -0700
- To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Lisa and colleagues, 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/10be01c69450$aa336fb0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1 (Issue ID: LC-1036) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0118.html WCAG 2.0 claims to define and address the requirements for making Web content accessible to those with learning difficulties, cognitive limitations and others. We object to that claim. Specifically, the success criteria requirements for making content understandable largly ignore the needs of people with learning difficulties and cognitive limitations. Please note that there are guidelines published by other groups that will make content much more accessible to these users. However, with the WCAG claim to address learning difficulties and cognitive limitations, people will not know that they need to look further. We would like to see continued work in this field and a statement in the WCAG 2.0 abstract and introduction modifying the claim that they currently address accessibility for learning disabilities. Specifically, we recommend removing learning difficulties and cognitive limitations from the list of supported disabilities. A sentence may be added later in the abstract that "these guidelines may also provide some benefits for people with learning difficulties and cognitive limitations". We would then like to see a statement of intent such as: "the working group intends to build additional success criteria to address accessibility for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations." All the best, Lisa Seeman, www.ubaccess.com Jonathan Chetwynd, Accessible Solutions Andy Heath, Axelrod Research and Computing Gez Lemon, www.juicystudio.com Roberto Scano Gian Sampson-Wild Dr. Andy Judson Yvette Hoitink Marc Walraven Fred Heddell MBE, Inclusion International Mrs. Zoe Apostolopoulou e-ISOTIS Andrew Arch Vision Australia Sofia Celic Vision Australia Keith Smith, BILD (British Institute of Learning Disabilities) Peter Rainger Erlend Øverby William Loughborough Geert Freyhoff Inclusion Europe Better Days advocacy group Mencap Accessibility Unit The Rix Centre (for Innovation and Learning disability) Antonia Hyde, United Response Diane Lightfoot, United Response Jo Kidd, The Skillnet Group Dan Edney The Skillnet Group United Response (UR) Liddy Nevile, La Trobe University Andy Minnion, The Rix Centre Simon Evans, The Rix Centre Jim Byrne, GAWDS Mel Pedley Pamela E Berman Caroline Lambie, Mencap Web Communications Manager. Andrew Holman, Inspired Services Robert Hubbert, Ubisan John Nissen, Cloudworld Ltd Paul Williams Roger Hudson Janine Ness Zoe Porter, Valuing People Sue Carmichael, Valuing People Geoff Stead David Sloan, Digital Media Access Group Simon Cramp Ann Fergusson Dr. Robin Boast Matthew Smith Neel Shearer, CALL (Communication Aids for Language and Learning) Centre Paul Brown, The Scottish Disability Team Jim Ley Sally Cooper TechDis Katarina Mühlenbock, Dart Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo, Sidar Mats Lundälv Dart Sari Follansbee Sarah Riley Sally Paveley, Advisory Unit ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have added language to the Introduction, the Conformance section, and the Quick Reference to highlight the fact that WCAG 2.0 only addresses some of the needs of people with cognitive, learning, and language disabilities, and to call out the need for more research in this area. WAI is exploring ways in which to support and encourage work in this important area. See WCAG 2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#abstract http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#intro http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels Quick Reference: http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20070517/#intro We have added some best practices for cognitive, learning, and language disabilities as advisory techniques, and this draft contains three new success criteria in this area. New success criteria: SC 2.4.9 Where content is organized into sections, the sections are indicated with headings. SC 3.3.4 Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input SC 3.3.6 For forms that require the user to submit information, at least one of the following is true: 1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible. 2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for input errors before going on to the next step in the process. 3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the transaction. Advisory techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070517/#N1255F
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:40:19 UTC