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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:41:04 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171641y2dd89dc8wc10f28ec2af573ff@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lynn Alford" <imla@jcu.edu.au>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Lynn Alford ,

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

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/20060531040338.AADE366363@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-660)

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

In the document \"About Baseline and WCAG2.0\" it states

\"They would use the HTML 4.01 techniques described as "sufficient" in
Understanding WCAG 2.0. (Authors may further enhance the user
experience by also using additional HTML techniques listed as
"advisory" (optional) in Understanding WCAG 2.0.)\"

The sections with advisory techniques are clearly labeled as
\"Additional Techniques (Advisory) for x.x.x\"

The techniques deemed as sufficient requires that you read the
paragraph under the title \"Techniques for Addressing Success
Criterion x.x.x\" which does says \"Each numbered item in this section
represents a technique or combinations of techniques that the WCAG
Working Group deems to be sufficient to meet success criterion x.x.x
as long as the technologies used are in the baseline you are using.\"

Proposed Change:

Clearly mark the \'sufficient\' techniques in the document to aid
understanding both documents.

Response from Working Group:

Yes - we see that problem.  Take a look at the Quick Reference
document at http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/.  We have
rearranged the techniques to make them clearer and avoid the problem
you cite both here and in Understanding WCAG 2.0.

Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060531042326.38384DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-662)

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

Given that the conformance document states \"The success criteria for
each guideline are organized into three (3) levels.
  Level 1 success criteria:  Achieve a minimum level of accessibility.
  Level 2 success criteria:  Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility.
  Level 3 success criteria:  Achieve additional accessibility enhancements\"

Then is the following statement true as well?  \"This method of
grouping success criteria differs in important ways from the approach
taken in WCAG 1.0. Each checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was assigned a
\"priority\" according to its impact on accessibility. Thus, Priority
3 checkpoints appeared to be less important than Priority 1
checkpoints. The WCAG Working Group believes that all success criteria
of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system of
checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by
success criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above.\"

The fact that level 1 is described as \'minimum level of
accessibility\', level 2 as \'enhanced level of accessibility\' and
level 3 as \'additional\' makes the levels feel very much the same as
priorities in WCAG 1.  Is this method of grouping truly different?

Proposed Change:

Response from Working Group:

The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ) has
been rewritten to clarify the differences:

The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more
important than others. Each success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is essential
to some users, and the levels build upon each other. However, even
content that conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to
every person with a disability.

*In general, Level A success criteria achieve accessibility by
supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible
limits on presentation. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities
using a wide range of assistive technologies, from voice input and
eye-tracking devices to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able
to access content in different ways. In other words, Level A success
criteria support the ability of both mainstream and specialized user
agents to adapt content to formats that meet their users' needs.

*The success criteria in Level AA provide additional support for
assistive technology. At the same time, they also support direct
access to content by the many people who use conventional user agents
without assistive technology. In general, Level AA success criteria
place more limits on visual presentation and other aspects of content
than the success criteria in Level A.

*Level AAA success criteria increase both direct access and access
through assistive technology. They place tighter limits on both
presentation and content.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:41:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:43 UTC