Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Susan Lesch ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 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, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at 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 . Please see 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:

(Issue ID: LC-1301)


Congratulations on Last Call.

I just wanted to mention that fewer documents and terms might aid readers and
implementers. Currently there are so many resources linking to resources
linking to resources (I had this feeling recently on Wikipedia when trying to
find the right way to do something -- I wasn't sure after reading four
different help files if I knew the answer). I apologize for making this
comment because I have not read all of these documents.

The Guidelines might be more focused and accessible to readers if some of the
supplementary steps and documents were eliminated or folded in to annotations
in the spec itself [1]. Again sorry if my assumption here is wrong that
eventually the Recommendation itself is intended to express its goal.

Related Resources
Additional Techniques (Advisory)
How To
Success Criterion
Common Failures
Essential Components
Key Terms
Quick Reference
How to Comment

Hope this helps and if not please feel free to ignore this comment. Good luck
on your project.


Response from Working Group:

We have struggled with the large amount of information developed for
WCAG2 and the needs for different views of the information. For
instance, we need to separate normative from non-normative
information. We have attempted to simplify the presentation and number
of documents. We hope that the Quick Reference will help users operate
primarily out of a single document.

Comment 2:

(Issue ID: LC-894)

Congratulations on your Last Call.

One comment that you may have received from others: If the
principles [1] were maintained outside the guidelines [2], then
the guidelines might be easier to find and comprehend. The
guidelines would then have thirteen whole numbers.

Maybe [1] could say which guidelines developed from which
principle. Below is just a text outline. I wonder if the spec
adheres to its subject -- the guidelines --  if implementers may
find the guidelines easier to follow over time.

Hope this helps.

For [1]:

  * Principle 1: Content must be perceivable (Guidelines 1-4).

  * Principle 2: Interface components in the content must be
                 operable (Guidelines 5-9).

  * Principle 3: Content and controls must be understandable
                 (Guidelines 10-11).

  * Principle 4: Content should be robust enough to work with
                 current and future user agents (including
                 assistive technologies) (Guidelines 12-13).

For [2]:

  * Guideline 1:  Provide text alternatives for all non-text content.

  * Guideline 2:  Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia.

  * Guideline 3:  Ensure that information and structure can be
                  separated from presentation.

  * Guideline 4:  Make it easy to distinguish foreground information
                  from its background.

  * Guideline 5:  Make all functionality operable via a keyboard

  * Guideline 6:  Allow users to control time limits on their reading
                  or interaction.

  * Guideline 7:  Allow users to avoid content that could cause
                  seizures due to photosensitivity.

  * Guideline 8:  Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient
                  themselves within it, and navigate through it.

  * Guideline 9:  Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct
                  mistakes that do occur.

  * Guideline 10: Make text content readable and understandable.

  * Guideline 11: Make the placement and functionality of content

  * Guideline 12: Support compatibility with current and future user
                  agents (including assistive technologies).

  * Guideline 13: Ensure that content is accessible or provide an
                  accessible alternative.


Best wishes for your project.

Response from Working Group:

The working group considered making this change to the numbering
scheme. However, we felt that it is important to have a different
numbering scheme between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 since both sets of
guidelines are likely to be in use in various contexts at the same

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:44:35 UTC