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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (5 of 6)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:40:28 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171640od68044ck50dc6d121166d141@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

These responses are all to comments from the spreadsheet
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137//wcagform4ch.html

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-617)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

from the appendix...
"If style sheets are in your baseline, WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 6.1 (that
the word order of text needs to make sense without css) is not
required;"

I do not understand this example, In fact it seems to highlight the
problem of baseline - that an accessibility problem will persist even
if a technology is supported by Assistive technology. For example An
Assistive technology may be able to work with Aural CSS (if it was not
depreciated) display visible, phuedo class etc, and still not be able
to work out what the reading order is just based of pixel positioning
of test in columns (without more information).

surely text out of order will not be understandable by assistive
technologies even when CSS is supported?

7, Overall people are struggling understanding the baseline concept.
One person, hugely talented and experienced in accessibility thought
that if all pages used CSS then 6.1 does not matter any more

Proposed Change:

How can we define baseline so that 6.1 is supported in this baseline?

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

The working group agrees that the problem you cite should not be
allowed.  However, that problem is already not allowed with the
current guidelines.  Even if style sheets are in the baseline, the
content must satisfy SC 1.3.3. The Failure "Failure of SC 1.3.3 due to
changing the meaning of content by positioning information with CSS."
would explicitly prohibit this sort of use of CSS.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-618)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves
within it, and navigate through it

Success criteria does not include what is require to make AJAX regions
accessible

Proposed Change:

require blocks are identifiable

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

The success criterion has been updated to require that roles, states,
properties, and values be programmatically determined. It now reads:
"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."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-619)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

mechanism is available for ....

A mechanism is only useful if: it is usable by AT or b, it is usable by the user

Proposed Change:

change definition of mechanism to process or technique for achieving a
result that is easy (does not require a change of context, and uses
simple language)  for the user to use can be programmatically
determined for  AT for people with learning disabilities

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

To clarify that the user must be able to access the mechanism, we have
added the following note to the definition:

Note: the mechanism must meet all success criteria for the conformance
level claimed

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-620)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

This document contains principles, guidelines, and success criteria
that define and explain the requirements for making Web-based
information and applications accessible. "Accessible" means usable to
a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low
vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive
limitations...

I am not sure that if pages are fixed to comply to WCAG they will be
more accessible to LD

Proposed Change:

Change to exclude Learning disabilities.

----------------------------
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 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.

We have added some best practices for cognitive, learning, and
language disabilities as advisory techniques, and we have proposed 3
new success criteria in this area.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-621)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Quote: Because not all level 3 success criteria can be used with all
types of content, Triple-A conformance only requires conformance to a
portion of level 3 success criteria

This means that no one will bother with level three because you can
claim Triple-A conformance by just doing one level 3 SC

Proposed Change:

Remove this paragraph

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

We have changed the definition of Level AAA conformance so that all
Level AAA Success Criteria that apply to the content types used must
be satisfied.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-622)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

The primary natural language is identified.
Why is this level 1?  I have not seen an assistive technology and user
not work at all because the language attribute is missing. this seems
to be level 3

Proposed Change:

move to level 3

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

There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to
move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working
group was to leave them in the current positions.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/141101c67f59$88036aa0$6400a8c0@IBM4CD7E5EACA1
(Issue ID: LC-623)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform4ch.html

Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

changes in natural language is identified:
Is WCAG awere that this is huge amount of work?  for lots of  content
this would be more work then the rest of WCAG put together (all the
has English in for web site names and odd words..). On the other hand
it seems typically understandable by the user as is, and not so
important for the user..

Proposed Change:

move SC 3.2 to level 3

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

There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to
move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working
group was to leave them in the current positions.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:40:42 UTC

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