Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Trevor Barton ,

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/OF1AE9BB59.785C785A-ON8025717A.0034CBA2-8025717E.00567C00@misidommail01.offices.ox.ac.uk
(Issue ID: LC-1328)

Item number: Whole document

Comment type: Editorial

Comment: The success criteria have rather lengthy titles because the
titles and the descriptions of them are one and the same thing. It would
be helpful for web development project meetings to have short-form names
for all the success criteria (and perhaps for the Guidelines as well - but
it is less relevant for the principles as there are only four of them).

Example 1: 'Make all functionality operable in a keyboard'

Example 2: 'For each time-out, one of the following is true: user can
deactivate it/ default can be changed by a factor of 10x/ a simple action
can extend the time-out at least 10x on a sliding scale and the user is
given a 20 second warning/ no alternative to the time-out is possible/ it
is an activity where timing is essential.'

Proposed Change:

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

We have included short handles in the draft to make the success
criterion easier to reference.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/OF1AE9BB59.785C785A-ON8025717A.0034CBA2-8025717E.00567C00@misidommail01.offices.ox.ac.uk
(Issue ID: LC-1329)

Item number: 1.3.1
Comment type: Editorial

Comment: Problem of language: 'Information and relationships conveyed
through presentation can be programmatically determined, and notification
of changes to these...' To these what?

Proposed change: Clarification needed.

Item number: 3.1.6
Comment type: Editorial

Comment: What is the overlap here to UAAG?

Proposed change: What does the website developer have to do here, and what
does the UA developer have to do?

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

Grammatically, the word "these" refers to the information and
relationships in the first clause of the success criterion, and
additional wording should not be needed to clarify this.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/OF1AE9BB59.785C785A-ON8025717A.0034CBA2-8025717E.00567C00@misidommail01.offices.ox.ac.uk
(Issue ID: LC-1562)

Item number: 3.1.6
Comment type: Editorial

Comment: What is the overlap here to UAAG?

Proposed change: What does the website developer have to do here, and what
does the UA developer have to do?

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

The website developer must ensure that information about pronunciation
is available when it is needed. For most text, the words themselves
should be sufficient. However, in cases where there is ambiguity about
the pronunciation, or the pronunciation can't be determined from the
word at all, pronunciation information must be provided as part of the
  content.

The User Agent responsibility is to rendered the text as speech, using
the information provided.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:45:25 UTC