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 16:45:45 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171645l7ee58c3dlbcd4c4f0d04e90d7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Bruce Bailey  ,

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

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/20060519150944.F28C0DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-558)

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

1.3.2 (color alone) is not sufficiently disambiguated from 1.3.4
(variations in presentations in text).  Two of four examples, and only
Common Failure, in UNDERSTANDING should be associated with 1.3.4.  The
implication is that 1.3.4 should be Level 1.

Proposed Change:

Promote 1.3.4 to Level 1.  It may then be possible to demote 1.3.2 to
Level 2 or 3.

I am also commenting on UNDERSTANDING and TECHNIQUES but with the
assumption that 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 are correct as-is.

Response from Working Group:

SC 1.3.4 has been folded into SC 1.3.1, in order to clarify that text
variations are one of many types of design that must be semantically
identified. SC 1.3.2 is thus more clearly specifically about the
non-semantic aspect of the visual design specific to color.

SC 1.3.2 was previously a Level AA success criterion. The Working
Group decided between January 17th and February 24th, 2006, to elevate
it to Level A because of the desire to require a visual differentiator
for color blind users. If SC 1.3.2 is moved to Level AA and SC 1.3.4
is moved to Level A, then all that would be required is for the color
change to be programmatically determinable.

To clarify situation, we have created a new sufficient technique for
SC 1.3.2 situation A: "Using semantic markup whenever color cues are
used" (and reference H49).

Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060519151827.3B0E4DAF01@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-559)

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

The following Examples are currently associated with 1.3.2:

Situation A: If the color of particular words is used to indicate information.
Ensuring that color encoded information is also available in text.
Including a text cue whenever color cues are used

The above are too broad for 1.3.2 and should be associated only with 1.3.4.

Proposed Change:

Move the above to 1.3.4.

Add example of using colored text that is also bold and italic as a
way to satisfy 1.3.2.

Response from Working Group:

We have added a technique to Situation A in "How to meet 1.3.2" that
reads, "Ensuring that when text color is used to convey information,
the text style is visually differentiated without color."

Comment 3:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060519152604.54734BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-560)

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

G14 is associated with 1.3.2.  As written, it is too restrictive and
is more applicable to 1.3.4.  Unfortunately, that does not leave a
technique for 1.3.2.

I have also commented that 1.3.4 may be rated at too low a level.
This comment assumes that 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 remain unchanged.

Proposed Change:

Associate G14 with 1.3.4.

Just one idea:  Add a technique for 1.3.2 where red H3 headings are
underlined and green H3 headings are italicized.

Response from Working Group:

We have added a technique to Situation A in "How to meet 1.3.2" that
reads, "Ensuring that when text color is used to convey information,
the text style is visually differentiated without color."
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:43 UTC