Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (2 of 6)

These responses are all to comments from the spreadsheet
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-634)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

With new technology such as roles within the WAI, you can assign the
role of the object in a programmatically understandable way. So if
assistive technology knows the role of a picture is as a bullet, or to
say that a star means it is required, or that spacer.gif is for
spacing - why do you have to also fill in the alt tag?

Proposed Change:

Add to the list of options: The role and behavior of non-text content
can be programmatically determined

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

While defining roles is an important new enabler of accessibility, it
should not be used as a replacement for the predefined semantics in
HTML. Images should always have alternative text, and semantic
elements used whenever possible. Roles should be used to supplement
semantics when those semantics are inadequately provided by the host
language.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-635)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

With new technology such as roles within the WAI, you can assign the
role of the object in a programmatically understandable way.  Also you
can use RDF, xfroms etc to similar affect.

Proposed Change:

1.3.2 Any information that is conveyed by color can be
programmatically determined or is also visually evident without color

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

Information conveyed through variations in the presentation must be
programmatically determinable in order to conform to SC 1.3.1. Since
color is a variation in presentation, any information conveyed by
variations in color must be programmatically determinable. Thus a
change to SC 1.3.2 is not needed.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-636)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

the information for the user is important not the change in  presentation...

Proposed Change:

Information that is conveyed by variations in presentation of text is
also conveyed in text, or the informations can be programmatically
determined.

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

SC 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 have been combined to read "Information and
relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically
determined or are available in text, and notification of changes to
these is available to user agents, including assistive technologies."
This wording ensures that it is the meaning conveyed by the
presentation that must be programmatically determined, and allows the
author to indicate the meaning in text if it is not feasible to do so
programmatically. The How to Meet document describes this in some
detail.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-637)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

two questions we need to know for interface components
1, who am I ? This is a question of element integrity
a ball bouncing across the screen is the same ball and not  changes of
color of pixels across a screen
2, what am I? what is my function (role)

But what I am not sure is mentioned is make sure each element exists
in the first place - and is not color across a screen. or letters in
no logical order but that are absolutely positioned. A ball is a ball,
a word is a word. Things need to know who they are and to what they
belong.

Proposed Change:

Add at level one
All  objects and components that can be visual perceived can be
programmatically identified thought its life cycle.

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

We have revised SC 1.3.1 ("Information and relationships conveyed
through presentation can be programmatically determined or are
available in text, and notification of changes to these is available
to user agents, including assistive technologies.") and SC 4.1.2 ("For
all user interface components, the name and role can be
programmatically determined, states, properties, and values that can
be set by the user can be programmatically determined and
programmatically set, and notification of changes to these items is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies.") so that
this is now required.

If objects and components can be visually perceived, SC 1.3.1 requires
that they be programmatically determined or described by text. Changes
 to the object also need to be notified.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-638)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Maybe the user needs to know what the baseline is. Then if they really
need this content they can find a user agent that can supply it.

Proposed Change:

Add at level one
The user can access what technologies are included in the baseline,
even without using baseline technologies

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

We are no longer using the term baseline to describe this concept. In
order to access a description of the technologies relied upon by a
given site, the user would need to access some Web content, which in
turn would need to rely on a Web technology of some sort. We cannot
see a way out of this dilemma.

We have added the following optional component of a conformance claim
to make it easier to determine what technologies are relied upon:

The list of specific technologies that are relied upon, in
machine-readable metadata.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-639)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

1.3.1 Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can
be programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these
is available to user agents, including assistive technologies...and

Missing hear is you need to encapsulation of the functions and
behavours of each element is essential

Proposed Change:

Add at level one
The  functions and behavours of each element  that can be visual
Perceived can be programmatically identified thought its life cycle.

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

This is addressed by Success Criterion 4.1.2, which requires that
relevant properties can be programatically determined and that updates
be available to AT, which ensures it will be current throughout the
life cycle.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-640)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

this needs to be at level one because many sites are completely
inoperable because of failure

Proposed Change:

move to level 1

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

Because assistive technology may not be able to preserve shape, size,
visual location, or orientation of components when it transforms
content to an alternate presentation, this success criterion has been
moved to level A.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-641)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

With RDF, XHTML roles etc, time outs can now be programmatically determined

Proposed Change:

add to the bulleted list in 2.2.1 Success criteria
The role of time outs and updated regions can be programmatically determined

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

The working group recognizes that with the addition of an appropriate
role and states, an assistive technology could recognize time-outs
within the content. With that knowledge, the assistive technology
could take the appropriate action to allow the user to modify the
time-out. While this could be true for assistive technologies, there
is no checkpoint in the User Agent Accessibility guidelines that
requires a user agent to recognize and modify time-outs. Thus, even if
the time-out could be programmatically determined, there is no
requirement for user agents to respect this information. Thus, someone
using a "standard" user agent and not an assistive technology could
encounter a time-out which could not be modified. For this reason, the
working group has decided not to add your suggested bullet, "The role
of time outs and updated regions can be programmatically determined"
to the success criterion 2.2.1. If testing revealed that adding the
role information was supported by an appropriate assistive technology
to modify time-outs, success criterion 2.2.1 would be satisfied. When
an assistive technology exists that supports this level of
programmatic information we will add an additional sufficient
technique.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-642)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

With RDF, XHTML roles etc, time outs can now be programmatically determined

Proposed Change:

does the wording cover  this, if not add to the wording of  2.2.3 and
2.2.2 Success criteria

...Unless the  role of time outs and updated regions can be
programmatically determined

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

The working group recognizes that with the addition of an appropriate
role and states, an assistive technology could recognize that
particular content was time dependent. With that knowledge, the
assistive technology could take the appropriate action to allow the
user to pause the content or change the frequency of the update or
movement.  While this could be true for assistive technologies, there
is no checkpoint in the User Agent Accessibility guidelines that
requires a user agent to recognize and pause content.  Thus, even if
the time dependent content could be programmatically determined, there
is no requirement for user agents to respect this information.  Thus,
someone using a "standard" user agent and not an assistive technology
could encounter content which could not be paused.  For this reason,
the working group has decided not to add your suggested clause,
"Unless the role of time outs and updated regions can be
programmatically determined" to the success criteria 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
If testing revealed that adding the role information was supported by
an appropriate assistive technology to pause content, success criteria
 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 would be satisfied.  When an assistive technology
exists that supports this level of programmatic information we will
add an additional sufficient technique.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-643)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform_ch_1html.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

quote " At Levels 1 and 2, WCAG conformance is only required for
technologies inside the baseline. Technologies outside the baseline
need not conform," ah.. and then it is clarified

I do no think that is what you mean but people will misquote that to
think that if they set a baseline of html, then there site is
conforment because everything is in flash which is outside baseline.

Proposed Change:

change 4.2 wording

Content implemented using technologies outside of the chosen baseline
satisfies all Level 1 and Level 2 requirements supported by the
technologies even when  accessible alternatives using technologies
inside the baseline are provided.

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

We have switched from using "baseline" to using "accessibility
supported Web technology".

In order to conform to WCAG, any content in a
non-accessibility-supported Web technology must also be available in
an accessibility-supported Web technology. This is explained in the
Conformance section "Conformance requirements", conformance
requirement 5.

We are worried that explicitly saying "even when accessible
alternatives inside the baseline are provided" may lead readers to
think that there are some situations where there won't already be
accessible alternatives. We think this is explained more clearly in
the How To Meet document for this success criterion.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:40:36 UTC