RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Loretta, and WCAG 2.0 team,

thanks for addressing my comments.  I am satisfied with your decision.

Thanks for your good work, and i hope WCAG 2.0 will make it to REC status
soon.

Gottfried



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:34 AM
> To: Gottfried Zimmermann
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
> 
> 
> Dear Gottfried Zimmermann ,
> 
> 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/01e101c69555$d3fcd9c0$6c00a8c0@ThinkPadR40
> (Issue ID: LC-939)
> 
> The note in section "Conformance notes" states conformance
> for the case of content negotiation. The requirement that 
> only the page returned with no content negotiation needs to 
> comply with WCAG 2.0 is too weak, with regard to content 
> negotiation for alternate language delivery. A page should 
> comply for all of its language versions.
> 
> As an example, consider a website where only the English
> version (default for content negotiation on language) is 
> accessible according to WCAG 2.0. The website could claim 
> conformance although all non-English users would get 
> inaccessible web pages through their user agents.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> 
> Add to the note: "Exception: This note does not apply for
> alternative language versions being delivered through content 
> negotiation. A Web unit conforms to WCAG 2.0 only if all its 
> language versions conform."
> 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> 
> We have removed the requirement about content negotiation.
> However, we have added the following to the conformance 
> criterion on alternate
> versions:
> 
> If multiple language versions can be negotiated, then
> conformant versions are required for each language offered.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2:
> 
> Source:
> http://www.w3.org/mid/01e101c69555$d3fcd9c0$6c00a8c0@ThinkPadR40
> (Issue ID: LC-940)
> 
> These success criteria would make a web page with multiple
> language versions compliant, with only one version being 
> conformant and the others being inaccessible. We need to 
> exempt alternative language versions from this success 
> criterion. This should be mentioned and the definition of 
> "alternate version(s)" should be amended correspondingly.
> 
> Essence: An accessible page in Korean is not an equivalent
> alternative for an inaccessable page in Urdu.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> 
> Add to 4.2.1 and 4.2.3: "This does not apply to alternate
> versions serving different languages."
> 
> Also, change the definition of "alternate version(s)" to
> exclude versions serving different languages, e.g.: "version 
> that provides all of the same information and functionality 
> in the same natural language and is as up to date as any 
> non-conformant content".
> 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> 
> We have revised the definition of "alternate version" to
> clarify that the versions must use the same natural language. 
> In reworking the conformance section, we have also added: If 
> multiple language versions can be negotiated, then conformant 
> versions are required for each language offered."

Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 08:05:22 UTC