W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2007

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (3 of 8)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:47:21 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171647l2f103910hfafd7cfc085d499b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gian Sampson-Wild" <gian@tkh.com.au>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 30:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1051)

2.4.4: Image maps (and images that are also links) are not mentioned
and it could be interpreted that they are outlawed by this SC

Proposed Change:

Include image maps and image links (with appropriate ALT attributes)
in the examples

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

Examples of image maps and image links are included in techniques H24
(Providing a text alternative for the area element) and H30 (Providing
link text that describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements).
Since they appear to be easy to miss, we modified the title of
technique H24 to make it clearer that the area elements are in image
maps, and included references between these techniques in the Related
Techniques section.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 31:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1052)

2.4.5: This should be at Level 1. Descriptions, headings, labels etc
are very important for both people who use screen readers and people
with cognitive disabilities. Equivalent checkpoints in WCAG 1.0 are at
Level AA

Proposed Change:

Move to Level 1

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

We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.2 (formerly 2.4.3) and moved it
to level A.

SC 2.4.6 (formerly 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 32:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1053)

2.4.6: This should be at Level 1. Order of information is very
important to both people who use screen readers and people with
cognitive disabilities.

Proposed Change:

Move to Level 1

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

Because assistive technology cannot provide access to rerendered
content if this success criterion is not satisfied, it has been moved
to level A.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 33:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1054)

2.4.7: This should be at Level 1. Determining the current location is
sometimes very difficult for both people who use screen readers and
people with cognitive disabilities

Proposed Change:

Move to Level 1

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

This success criterion is at level AAA because not all web pages are
part of a set of web pages to which this success criterion can be
applied. The working group agrees that when it does apply, it is very
important for people with these disabilities.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 34:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1056)

2.4.4 & 2.4.8: 2.4.8 should move to Level 1 and replace 2.4.4. People
who use screen readers often navigate through a page by tabbing from
link to link and therefore can determine the content on the page.
Allowing for link text to not describe the target of the link means
that these users will find it difficult to navigate.

Proposed Change:

Move to Level 1 and delete 2.4.4

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

SC 2.4.8 is at level AAA because of the potential usability problems
introduced by requiring that the link text alone be sufficient. For
instance, in a table of links, repeating the table header information
in each cell makes the table much more difficult to use.

The basic requirement that assistive technology be able to determine
the purpose of the link is covered by SC 2.4.4. This success criterion
has been moved to level A.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 35:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1057)

2.5: There should be a Level 1 SC which requires error prevention
techniques, such as providing instructions at the beginning of a form

Proposed Change:

Create a new SC. I am happy to help with this

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

In addition to success criteria 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 in the April 2006
draft, we have created two new success criteria intended to help users
avoid errors:
1. A Level AA success criterion "Labels or instructions are provided
when content requires user input".
2. A Level AAA success criterion that is similar to the level AA (was
2.5.3) success criterion except there are no exceptions. "For forms
that require the user to submit information, at least one of the
following is true:
   1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible.
   2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for input errors before going
on to the next step in the process.
   3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming,
and correcting information before finalizing the transaction."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 36:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1058)

2.5.4: This should be Level 1. Context sensitive help is very
important to people who use screen readers and people with cognitive
disabilities.

Proposed Change:

Move to Level 1

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

While context sensitive help is useful and sometimes necessary for
people with disabilities, the type and level of detail for context
sensitive help varies greatly depending upon the type and functions of
the site. Requirements must be applicable to all Web sites in order to
qualify as Level A or Level AA in WCAG 2.0.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 37:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1059)

3.1.4: If information is provided in an abbreviated form without
expansion, then the content is essentially inaccessible to people that
cannot interpret the abbreviation. People who use screen readers and
people with cognitive disabilities often have difficulties
interpreting abbreviations.

Proposed Change:

There should be a Level 1 version of this SC which requires that
important abbreviated information is marked up, or expanded the first
time it is used in a page

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

As outlined by the different situations in SC 3.1.4, providing the
expansion for the first use of an abbreviation is only a sufficient
technique when the abbreviation only has one expansion on that web
page, e.g., Dr. is only used as an abbreviation for doctor or for
drive, but not for both. Otherwise, providing the expansion on the
first use will be more confusing for users with cognitive
disabilities.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 38:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1060)

3.2.1 & 2.2.5: From my reading, 3.2.1 outlaws changes of context when
a component receives focus, but 2.2 allows changes in content for no
reason (only outlawing at L3)

Proposed Change:

Rewrite SC 3.2.1 and 2.2.5

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

While it is possible that the result of a time limit expiration may be
a change in context or content, success criterion 2.2.1 and 3.2.1
(both at level A) work together to ensure that both unexpected changes
in context as the result of a component receving focus (3.2.1) and
changes in content resulting from a time-out (2.2.1) will not occur
unexpectedly. While exceptions to success criterion 2.2.1 for
real-time events and activities where timing is essential exist,
guideline 2.2 does not allow changes in content for no reason.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 39:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1061)

WCAG 2 Quick Reference: While this is an excellent idea, it violates 3.2.1

Proposed Change:

Ensure that all the W3C WCAG 2 documents comply with at least L1 of WCAG2

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

Quick Reference has two places where it changes content.

One is the expanding check boxes at the top.  This causes changes in
content - but not changes in context.  It is the working groups
specific intent that the types of changes represented by the Quick
Reference be allowed.  In fact the Quick Reference was designed to
provide an example of what was not a change of context but only a
change of content.

The second part is the changing of the full document contents. This
does change the meaning of the page and would constitute a change of
context. This addresses the success criterion by providing information
in advance that explains how this changes. We have recently also
changed the introductory text to better reflect what happens as you
change the settings at the top.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 40:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1063)

4.1.1: How is this to be tested?

Proposed Change:

Provide information

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

To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC
4.1.1 to clarify that it must be possible to parse content without the
need for user agent repair. The revised SC reads as follows:

4.1.1 Content implemented using markup languages has elements with
complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their
specifications, and are nested according to their specifications.
(Level A)

Note: Start and end tags that are missing a critical character in
their formation, such as a closing angle bracket or a mismatched
attribute value quote are not complete.

Information about how to test this criterion is available in
Understanding 4.1.1.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 41:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1064)

4.1: There should be (preferably at Level 1) a requirement for content
to validate

Proposed Change:

Create a Level 1 SC requiring validation

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

The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended
period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all
aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase
in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages
that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain
situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is
not part of the specification.

The working group must work within its charter and only include things
that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use
technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to
accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would
take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our
number one technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 42:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1065)

4.2.4: This SC does not make sense. Shouldn't this be at Level 2?

Proposed Change:

Explain this SC

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

We have completely rewritten the conformance section of the
guidelines, and we have moved most of GL 4.2 into the conformance
section. This is no longer a success criterion. The section titled
"Three levels of conformance" contains:
"It is recommended that even non-conforming content conform to the
extent possible."

This applies independent of conformance level.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 43:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1066)

Images for markup: Seeing as this WCAG1 checkpoint does not map to a
particular SC, does this mean that WCAG2 allows images to be used
instead of markup, for example, images of text, instead of
CSS-manipulated text?  Or images for bullets instead of marked up
bulleted lists?

Proposed Change:

Clarify the mapping of 3.1.

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

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself and will
now be included in the WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 transition materials. This
will make it easier to update the mapping as new techniques are
developed.

The working group will work in coordination with the EOWG WCAG 2.0
Materials Support Task Force in the creation of transition materials
and will consider these comments when the mapping is updated.

To answer your question, WCAG 2.0 does not prohibit the use of images
of text provided that they have text alternatives. There is, however,
an advisory technique that advises against the use of images of text
in order to acheive a desired visual effect. Success criterion 1.3.1
lists the use of

      ,
            and

            for lists as a sufficient technique. Other techniques
could be used, but text alternatives would have to make the
information and relationships conveyed through this use of images
clear.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 44:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1067)

Relative vs absolute units: There should be a WCAG2 equivalent at
Level 1 for this WCAG1 checkpoint. The ability to change the text size
in a page is very important to people with vision impairments. The
ability to resize tables according to the size of the screen is very
important to people using PDAs

Proposed Change:

Create a new SC outlawing absolute units (I am happy to write this)

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

Although resizing is primarily a user agent function, we have added
new success criteria to address the author's responsibility for
supporting text resizing:

Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality.

Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality and in a way that does not require the user
to scroll horizontally.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC