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 16:45:37 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171645j51624ae2neacf74dfa41f5237@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Jon Gunderson ,

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/20060612134547.CA28447B9F@mojo.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-760)

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

This should be success criteria 1 like in the Priority 1 WCAG 1.0
requirement.  It is impossible for people using speech to guess at
language changes.  We have a lot of web based foriegn  language
courses at UIUC and we have identified that speech users cannot
determine when to manually switch their synthesizer languages, even
when they know that there are more than one language on the resource.
If changes in language are available modern screen readers will
automatically switch the lanaguge of the synthesizer.

Proposed Change:

Move this requirement to Success Criteria 1

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

There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to
move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working
group was to leave them in the current positions.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612141417.35612BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-762)

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

These requirement seems to deal with collections of web resources
(units).  I think that this should be stated that you are creating
some type of conformance for a collection of resources. It would make
it much clearer.  I think this should also be in the conformance
section.

If a resource does not meet the requirements, it just doesn\'t meet
the requirements.

Proposed Change:

1. Move this requirement to conformance section
2. Clearly state you want people to be able to make conformance claims
on collections of resources.

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

We have revised the conformance section significantly and have
clarified how claims for collections of versions can be made: 4.)
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 3:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140004.F18FF66364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-838)

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

I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1. If descriptions of an
image are SC1, then are not descriptions or titles of a web page of
equal importance? This should be merged with requirements of 2.4.5 and
that descriptions/titles should be \"unique\" for collections of a web
resources as part of the success criteria.

See UIUC Web Accessibility Best Practices:
http://html.cita.uiuc.edu/nav/title.php


Proposed Change:

I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1 and merged with the
requirements of 2.4.5.

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

We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.3 and moved it to level A.

The success criterion does not require that titles be unique because
the working group is concerned that requiring uniqueness will lead to
titles that are not as descriptive and usable. It may be very
difficult to create titles that are descriptive, unique, and
reasonably short. For example, a Web page that generates titles
dynamically based on its content might need to include part of the
dynamic content in the title to ensure that it was unique.  We are
also concerned that authors may make titles unique mechanically, such
as by including a unique number in the title that is unrelated to the
content. For these reasons, although we encourage unique titles in the
techniques for this SC, we are not including uniqueness in the SC
itself.

SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
descriptive power.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140642.A792066364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-839)

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

If descriptions of an image are SC1, then are not descriptions of a
web page titles and headings of equal importance?

Proposed Change:

Change to SC1.  Consider merging with requirement of SC 2.4.3.

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

SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
descriptive power.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:45:50 UTC

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