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

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:48:05 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171648u10f12963w218ba9706944816f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gian Sampson-Wild" <gian@tkh.com.au>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 105:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1132)

Dynamic navigation: Why is this an additional technique? It is
irrelevant to the SC

Proposed Change:

Delete this additional technique

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

This technique appears to be a subset of the technique on templates.
We have removed it from SC 3.2.3.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 106:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1133)

I cannot comment properly on this SC until there are failures documented

Proposed Change:

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

We have added a common failure to the Understanding document for 3.2.3
titled, "Failure of 3.2.3 due to presenting navigation links in a
different relative order on different pages."

Note that the success criterion permits reordering of the navigational
mechanisms by the user, if a different order suits the user's needs
better. However, the success criterion requires that the default
order be consistent, so that a user doesn't need to take any special
action to get predictable results.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 107:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1135)

Example 3 - Example of a Failure: Why is this a violation of this SC -
it is unclear

Proposed Change:

Clarify the example

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

Thanks for catching this; the title of the example has been changed to
indicate that it is an example of meeting the success criterion, not a
failure.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 108:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1136)

Consistency: Sometimes the Benefits section is bulleted, sometimes it is prose.

Proposed Change:

Ensure consistency throughout the documents

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

The benefits sections have been updated so that the formatting is consistent.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 109:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1137)

… and that the Web unit is well-formed: whether the document is
well-formed or not is irrelevant to this SC

Proposed Change:

Remove this part from the technique

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

Thanks for catching this. This technique title was mistakenly included
here and has been removed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 110:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1138)

Backwards compatibility: There is mention of future compatibility but
nothing about backwards compatibility. Has the W3C reversed its
position on backwards compatibility?

Proposed Change:

Clarify the W3C's position on backwards compatibility

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

Backward and forward compatibility is addressed through the analysis
of accessibility support for technologies.  The issues for the author
are similar.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 111:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1139)

How can you have an Advisory example?

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

Good catch. Examples that exceed the minimum requirements of the
success criterion do satisfy the success criterion. We removed
"Advisory" from the example.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 112:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1141)

SC: Change the SC to "Web units have descriptive titles". There is no
point having random titles for pages -they should indicate the content

Proposed Change:

Rewrite the SC

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

We have changed SC 2.4.2 (formerly 2.4.3) to "Web pages have
descriptive titles" and have also reflected this change in success
criterion 2.4.6 (formerly 2.4.5) and the support documents for both
success criteria.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 113:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1142)

There does not seem to be an appreciable difference between SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.8

Proposed Change:

Clarify the SC

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

We have reworded both SC 2.4.8 and SC 2.4.4 to clarify the
differences. They now read:

2.4.4 The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text
and its programmatically determined link context.
2.4.8 The purpose of each link can be identified from the link text.

where "Programmatically determined link context" is defined as:

programmatically determined link context
       1. Additional information that can be programmatically
determined from relationships with a link; and
       2. can be extracted, combined with the link text, and presented
to users in different modalities.

    Example 1: Screen readers provide commands to read the current
sentence when focus is on a link.

    Example 2: Examples of information that can be extracted, combined
with link text, and presented to users in different modalities include
text that is in the same sentence, paragraph, list, or table cell as
the link or in a table header cell that is associated with the table
cell that contains the link.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 114:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1143)

2.5.4: This should be a Level 1 SC. Providing assistance when filling
out information is very important to people with disabilities

Proposed Change:

Move 2.5.4 to Level 1

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

Because assistive technology may not be able to preserve shape, size,
visual location, or orientation of components when it transforms
content to an alternate presentation, this success criterion has been
moved to level A.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 115:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1144)

3.2.5 should be at Level 1. It is unclear to me why outlawing changes
of context on user initiation is at Level 1(3.2.1) whereas this allows
changes of context only on user initiation (3.2.5). They appear
contradictory

Proposed Change:

Clarify the SC

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

SC 3.2.1 covers different situations than those covered by SC 3.2.5.
SC 3.2.1 prohibits changes of context when the "user initiation" is
the act of moving focus to a user component. Since levels of
conformance build upon one another, this particular form of user
initiation is not permitted by SC 3.2.5. However, SC 3.2.5 prohibits
other types of change of context, such as notification windows opening
when the user is tracking external events.

The working group believes that the ability for user agents and AT to
suppress and/or notify users about pop-up windows, along with the four
success criterion (3.2.1, 3.2.2 3.2.5 and 2.2.1) address the concerns
about changes in context without user initiation. Because there is
some functionality that cannot be supported without asynchronous
changes of context, SC 3.2.5 is a level AAA success criterion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 116:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1145)

At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success
criteria…: Where does baseline fit in this?

Proposed Change:

Clarify baseline requirements

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

We have completely rewritten the conformance section of WCAG, and we
now discuss web technologies that are accessibility-supported, rather
than baselines. SC 4.2.1 has been removed from the success criteria
and incorporated into the conformance requirements: "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. The conformance requirements also specify
"Only documented accessibility-supported Web technologies are relied
upon to meet success criteria. Any information or functionality that
is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported
must also be available via technologies that are accessibility
supported." So the mechanism used to obtain the alternate version must
now only rely on Web technologies that are "accessibility-supported".
And there are defined criteria for what can be called
"accessibility-supported".
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:48:29 UTC

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