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 16:41:12 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171641mdc2301ey24fd9d36f04cb238@mail.gmail.com>
To: "M.F. Laughton" <adio@crc.ca>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear M.F. Laughton ,

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/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-941)

Principle 1: Content must be perceivable.
There is nothing in the current edition of WCAG to ensure Color
requirements / User Choices of color/presentation/font needs are
respected or requirements in the new WCAG. A low vision user doesn't
want a text equivalent, they want something in a presentation they can
read. Ie: 18 point font or black background and white text.

Proposed Change:

There should be explicit guidance relating to color/presentation/font
usage, as at least a level 2 success criterion.

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

Although configuring the text size, color, and font family are
primarily user agent functions addressed by the User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines, we have added new success criteria to
address the author's responsibility for supporting text resizing:

Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality.

Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality and in a way that does not require the user
to scroll horizontally.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-942)

When a Web unit or authored component is navigated sequentially,
components receive focus in an order that follows relationships and
sequences in the content. In our experience, failure to meet this
criterion renders many "accessible" pages "unusable" in any practical
sense.

Proposed Change:

Should be a level 2 criteria

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

Because assistive technology cannot provide access to rerendered
content if this success criterion is not satisfied, it has been moved
to level A.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-944)

The purpose of each link can be programmatically determined from the
link. "Meaningful" link text is no longer a high priority: it should
be. Navigating via links benefits a large number of users including
those using keyboard access, voice rec, alternate input and screen
reading technology. It remains in many cases the only means that many
users can navigate content in an efficient and useful manner.

Proposed Change:

Should be a level 2 criteria

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

SC 2.4.8 is at level AAA because of the potential usability problems
introduced by requiring that the link text alone be sufficient. For
instance, in a table of links, repeating the table header information
in each cell makes the table much more difficult to use.

The basic requirement that assistive technology be able to determine
the purpose of the link is covered by SC 2.4.4. This success criterion
has been moved to level A.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-945)

A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words
or phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and
jargon. We feel that indiscriminate (and unfortunately wide-spread)
use of such jargon is a greater barrier to understanding and using Web
content than is implied by its relegation to level 3.

Proposed Change:

Should be a level 2 criteria

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

SC 3.1.3 (formerly 3.1.5) is a level AAA success criterion because it
cannot be applied to all web pages. Content in some fields would
become extremely difficult to read if *all* specialized vocabulary had
to be defined either inline or via linking, even when the terms are
well known in their respective fields. Jargon is typically a barrier
for people who are not in the field where the jargon is used-- e.g.,
the jargon of literary history  may be problematic for chemical
engineers but not for literary historians.  Practitioners in a field
are likely to provide definitions when introducing new terms or
re-defining existing ones-- even when they are writing for their
professional peers.

We have added information to the Intent section, encouraging authors
to satisfy this success criterion even for lower levels of conformance
for specialized information intended for non-specialist readers.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-946)

The document lacks any reference to dealing with "unusual user
interface features or behaviours" that are likely to confuse the
first-time/novice user. We feel that such should be described to the
user before they are encountered.

Proposed Change:

Add a level 3 (at least) success criterion - perhaps to Guideline 3.1
- requiring that "Explain/describe/warn about the existence of unusual
user interface features or behaviours before they are encountered.

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

We've tried to address this type of scenario in the Guidelines as
"predictable" behaviour and it is covered under Guideline 3.2 "Make
the placement and functionality of content predictable." We've tried
to further supplement it with Guideline 2.4 "Provide mechanisms to
help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate
through it".

The success criteria need to be testable and it would be difficult to
test for an "unusual interface." However we have added a sentence to
the intent section of 2.4 that says:
"Unusual user interface features or behaviors may confuse people with
cognitive disabilities."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-947)

It is felt that this is a very weak part of the guidelines.

Proposed Change:

A level 2 item should stress that the initial or primary "presentation
of the content" is accessible, not just some version.

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

Users may reach the page via a variety of paths which makes it
difficult to clearly test for a default view. For instance, a search
engine may link directly to the inaccessible version and for that user
the inaccessible version would be the default because that is the
first page that they landed on in the site when they came from the
search engine. Another issue is that different users may have
different content negotiation results and therefore the "default"
version is could change based on user settings.

We have reworked this Success Criteria and moved it to the conformance section.

Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-949)

Rather than attempting to explain this term, the authors provide a
link to the definition in "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, Appendix F".
The "definition" in the XML Schema is incomprehensible to the majority
of us. Presumably the purpose of including a word in the glossary is
to render it understandable to people who don't already understand it.

Proposed Change:

Please explain it in layman's terms and provide the link to XML Schema
only as a supplemental reference.

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

We have completely rewritten the Conformance section. The format of
this description is no longer specified. The corresponding required
component is now:

4. A description of the URIs that the claim is being made for,
including whether subdomains are included in the claim.

 We have added examples to illustrate the use of boolean and regular
expressions in a conformance statement.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-950)

Some of the suggestions made in this submission - if not implemented
in W2 - will possibly find inclusion in a future version of the
Government of Canada's "Common Look and Feel Policy" for federal Web
sites either as standards (requirements) or guidelines (optional/best
practices). Unfortunately, this will lead to a "disharmonization"
[sic] of standards which is in no-one's best interest.

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

We have considered your suggestions (and all the others that we have
received) very carefully, and have tried hard to address your issues,
either in the guidelines or in advisory techniques.

We agree that harmonization among accessibility standards is highly desirable.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-951)

The baseline concept is still difficult to comprehend in real-world
terms, in spite of progressive reworkings of the baseline explanation
in "About Baselines and WCAG 2.0" and the less comprehensible
"Conformance" section in W2.

----------------------------
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/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-952)

This customizable "view" of WCAG 2.0 is far and away the best thing
the working group has done for the average end user. We hope this
resource continues to be developed and maintained. It is likely to be
the main entry point to W2 for many of our users. The opportunity to
bypass inapplicable content is irresistable.

Proposed Change:

The same paradigm should be used for future support materials created
by the GL working group and/or the Education and Outreach working
group.

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

Thank you.
it is our plan to continue this resource and we also figured that it
would be the primary entry point for developers.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/F78E6BBD22A6FC4489EBE25045407908022AEFD8@msg-mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca
(Issue ID: LC-953)

Unfortunately, the selection form requires (or presupposes) a firmer
grasp of the baseline concept than many of us have yet been able to
achieve. The resulting view if a technology is used but in or not it
the baseline is not as clear as we think it ought to be.

Proposed Change:

If feasible, it would be nice if any set of selections also generated
a corresponding example of a conformance statement (metadata ready)
and a verbal example of what that baseline means and how to interpret
it (similar to the examples in "About Baselines and WCAG 2.0").

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

We agree but this is beyond what the Quick Reference was designed for
or is capable of.   We have examples in the Understanding document but
do not see a way of doing this within Quick Reference.

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 .
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:41:33 UTC

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