Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Loretta Guarino Reid ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 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, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at 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 . Please see 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:

(Issue ID: LC-1524)

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

One of the clauses of 1.1.1 addresses General non-text content:
General Non-text Content: If non-text content presents information or
responds to user input, then text alternatives serve the same purpose
and present the same information as the non-text content. If text
alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at
least identify the purpose of the non-text content.

It is hard to imagine how a text alternative can ever serve the same
purpose as content that responds to user input, which makes this very
confusing. It seems that the only way to satisfy this for content that
responds to user input is to  provide a text alternative that
identifies the purpose of the content, that is, a label. However,
labels are already required for user interface components in SC 4.1.2.

Proposed Change:

1. Define non-text content so that it is clear that content that
responds to user input is not covered by this SC.
2. With this change, clarify the statement of SC 1.1.1 and the How to
Meet document.

Response from Working Group:

We have modified SC 1.1.1 to address this issue. See .

Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 00:15:17 UTC