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 16:43:22 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171643y2855fa4fla1f860a6ba94ca74@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Sailesh Panchang ,

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/20060502183953.6B7AB47B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-519)

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

Refer to paragraphs under Advisory Techniques for Guideline x.x
starting with "Specific techniques for ..." and ending with "more
accessible to more people."

Comment:

The fact that there are two categories is already stated in the
introductory content at the start of the doc. The paragraph that
follows this heading is unnecessarily repetitive.

Proposed Change:

Consider replacing with headings like:

- Advisory Techniques for Guideline x.x (general, not criteria specific)
- Advisory Techniques for Guideline x.x (criteria specific)

(If there are none under either category, a single word following the
heading saying, “None”, is sufficient). The recommendation made is
consistent with other headings like: Technology-Specific Techniques

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

The intent is that users jump to these "Understanding Guideline x.x"
modules directly from the guidelines. As a result, they will not have
read the introduction. Thus the redundancy in this paragraph with text
that is in the introduction.

We think retitling " Advisory Techniques for Guideline X.X" is a good
idea and have retitled it to  " Advisory Techniques for Guideline X.X
(not success criteria specific)"

Regarding just putting "none" we don't want people to think there are
no advisory techniques, and since this doc may be broken into separate
docs for each success criteria, we want to keep directions as to where
to look for the other advisory techniques.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614212054.41B05DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-800)

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

1. Editorial: Refer to How to meet 1.1.1
• If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is
being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are
provided to accommodate
multiple disabilities.
Comment: Do you mean 'multiple' disabilities or 'different'
disabilities / 'various kinds of disabilities'?


Proposed Change:

Replace 'multiple' disabilities with  'different' disabilities /
'various kinds of disabilities'

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

The bullet has been revised to read:
If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being
accessed by a person rather than a computer, then text alternatives
that identify and describe the purpose of the non-text content are
provided and alternative forms in different modalities are provided to
accommodate different disabilities.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614212440.5706FDAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-801)

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

Punctuational correction

Proposed Change:

Replace semi-colons with comma  as suitable in list item that reads:
• If non-text content is multimedia…

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

Semicolons have been changed to commas.


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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614212926.1DADDDAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-803)

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

The definition really does not add much else and one less term will
reduce the length and perceived complexity of the docs.

Proposed Change:

The term 'pure decoration' need not be defined. Instead word it to say:
… is purely for decoration or
Is solely for decoration
wherever the term \'pure decoration\' is used as in 1.1.1

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

There is much danger in people calling things decorative that have
function or convey information.  The definition helps to make this
clearer than just the term as you suggest.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614213437.416F6BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-805)

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

The term 'live multimedia' has not been defined while live audio and
live video are defined. Although the term 'live'  is generally
understood to mean real-time, I believe  the WCAG2 doc should use the
word 'real-time' in place of 'live' as more technically correct.

Proposed Change:

Use \'real-time\' in place of \'live\'
Consider defining real-time multimedia as well.

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

All live material is real-time but not all real-time is live.   If a
program generates content, it can do so in real-time.  But it would
not be covered by this guideline.  Live was used specifically to
distinguish things that happen "live" from those that are generated by
programs in real-time.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614213711.6A4EFBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-806)

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

Editorial

Proposed Change:

On Glossary page for 'role':
Refer to \'Example: A number that indicates whether an image functions
as a hyperlink, command button, or check box.\'
Editorial comment : replace 'as' with 'is'

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

The example is grammatically correct as written.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060615133936.6A325BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-810)

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

Refer to the term 'full multimedia text alternative including any
interaction ' :
The term needs to be re-worded to be more meaningful and correct. Consider:
'text alternative for multimedia '
Or
 'text alternative for interactive multimedia '


SORRY: I submitted this yesterday (June 14) but used the word
\'equivalents\' instead of \'alternative\' as I really intended

Proposed Change:

Refer to the term 'full multimedia text alternative including any
interaction ' :
The term needs to be re-worded to be more meaningful and correct. Consider:
'text alternative for multimedia '
Or
 'text alternative for interactive multimedia '

Its description in the glossary  should be
'document including correctly sequenced descriptions of all visual
settings, actions, and non-speech sounds combined with descriptive
transcripts of all dialogue. This also applies to multimedia-based
interactions, if any, with the user.'

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

Our current "full multimedia text alternative" term could be
confusing. 'Text alternative for multimedia' doesn't work because we
already require one of those in SC 1.1.1 but it is just a label. 'Text
alternative for interactive multimedia ' doesn't work because this
applies to all multimedia, not just interactive multimedia.  We are
therefore changing it to  "full text alternative for multimedia
including any interaction."

The success criterion now reads, "1.2.2 Audio descriptions of video,
or a full text alternative for multimedia including any interaction,
are provided for prerecorded multimedia."



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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060615151107.4128BDAEA3@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-811)

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

SC 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 do not distinguish between 'standard' and
'extended' audio descriptions. This is quite understandable. The
distinction  is done in the glossary.
In one situation 'standard' ones may be adequate and in another
'extended' ones may be needed. This depends on the context and whether
adequate pauses are available in multimedia to incorporate audio
descriptions. In one case there may be no scope to add even 2 words
without creating extended pauses; and in another one may be able to
add 50 words without creating extended pauses.

Therefore extended audio descriptions at level 3 (1.2.6) is an
unnecessary requirement.  They do not 'enhance' accessibility but are
required when pauses invideo need to be created to incorporate
appropriate audio descriptions.
It is understandable that audio descriptions are required to  provide
minimum accessibility (level 1) or enhance accessibility at level 2
but at level 3 it is repetitive.

Proposed Change:

Drop 1.2.6 completely

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

Extended audio descriptions are not required by SC 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. In
fact, Audio Description is defined as additional audio content during
the naturally occurring gaps.  SC 1.2.6 is therefore needed to
introduce the extended audio description concept.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060616181218.751FF47BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-812)

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

Conformance and Definition of L1, L2 and L3 for success criteria
For L1 and L2, the chief distinction is between 'minimum level' and
'enhanced level' of accessibility as the second factor (reasonably
applies to all Web content)  is common.
I contend that the terms 'minimum' and enhanced' cannot be viewed in a
vacuum without a context. For a user with particular kind of vision
impairment (VI), ability to manipulate background / foreground colors
may provide minimum accessibility and ability to manipulate text size
may provide enhanced level of accessibility. For another person with
VI, both or just the second one may be needed to provide minimum
accessibility.
Question: So in what context is the level determined?


Proposed Change:

Integrate the baseline into the definition of L1, L2 etc. This will
mean that SC at L1 exploit all accessibility features available  in
the baseline technology and this provides the necessary context.
In doing so the WG will be able to justify its statement: 'WG believes
that all success criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people'
and yet not say that one checkpoint is more important than another
like in WCAG 1.0.

At present obviously  an SC at L1 is more important than one at L2
because the former is supposed to provide 'minimum accessibility' and
a developer will be encouraged to implement these first.

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

We have completely rewritten the description of levels of
conformance(see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ):

"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."

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060616181645.EF91847BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-813)

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

Confusing: repetition of requirements for SC at different levels
Question: Does complying with an SC at L1 automatically leads to
compliance of an SC at L2?
Example: When audio descriptions for a video are provided (SC1.2.2)
then SC 1.2.3 is also being complied with simultaneously, is it not?
In this context what is the difference between  'minimum level' and
'enhanced level' of accessibility? In what context ? Who decides if it
is minimum or enhanced?
In the understanding WCAG 2.0 doc there are no distinctions
highlighted between 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 as far as audio descriptions and
level of accessibility are concerned.
Conversely, why is not the SC at L1 for GL 1.1 also listed at L2?



Proposed Change:

Do not repeat  requirements at L2  if they are already listed at L1
for a guideline; and do not repeat at L3 what is already stated at L1
or L2 for a guideline.
Signed language interpretation is required only at L3 for 1.2 and this
is not repeated at L1 or L2. This is how it should be.

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

There is no repeat of success criteria. There may be success criteria
at one level that are more stringent than a similar success criteria
another level.

For instance, in SCC 1.2.2 at level A, there is a choice between
providing an audio description or a full text transcript.  At Level
AA, audio description must be provided if not already chosen as the
option in Level A.  At Level AAA, a full text equivalent is required
if not chosen as the method for Level A.

The description of the levels has been clarified (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ):

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.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060616182743.A96AD47BA1@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-814)

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

Although the term \'synchronized\' is used in the guideline 1.2, it is
not used to describe any of the requirements in the  various SC. Why
not?
If it is a matter of detail or technique, then why has \'extended\'
audio descriptions been explicitly specified against 1.2.6? (By the
way I suggested do away with 1.2.6 in an earlier issue I raised.)

Proposed Change:

I think synchronized is a key word and needs to be included in the SC too.

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

Synchronization is not used because it is inherent in the definition
of the terms used in the success criteria except for SC 1.2.7.
"Captions", "audio description" and "interpretation" all require
simultaneity.   For SC 1.2.7, the parallel issue is handled by the
definition of "full multimedia text alternative including any
interaction".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060616183217.C5B6666363@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-815)

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

The term \'user agent\' has been defined to include assistive
technologies in the UAG as well as in the WCAG glossary. So why use
the term \'user agents including assistive technologies\' throughout
the document? It occurs several times throughout all the WCAG docs.
Restrict it to \'user agents\' and it will reduce length of the docs
and verbosity that a screen reader has to endure.

Proposed Change:

Restrict it to \'user agents\' and  delete \'including assistive technologies\'.

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

Although the definition of user agent includes assistive technologies,
the definition blurs the distinction between support for users with
disabilities that is provided directly by the user agent and support
that is provided by an external service that interacts with a user
agent that does not provide that support directly. Within WCAG, we use
assistive technology to refer to the latter sort of service. We call
out support for assistive technology explicitly so that
programmatically determinable information is available to assistive
technology, and not just to the host user agent. We agree that this
can make the language awkward and longer but we think the distinction
is important for clarity.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060616184258.0FDF566363@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-816)

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

Current wording:
1.3.3 When the sequence of the content affects its meaning, that sequence can be
programmatically determined.

Wording can be better.


Proposed Change:

1.3.3. When content needs to be presented in a particular order to
convey logical sequence (/ meaning ??), the sequence can be
programmatically determined

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

To clarify that SC 1.3.2 (formerly 1.3.3) is about sequential reading
order of content, SC 1.3.2 was worded: "When the sequence in which
content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence
can be programmatically determined and sequential navigation of
interactive components is consistent with that sequence."
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:43:42 UTC

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