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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: May 17, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (3 of 3)
To: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org>


Comment 30:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1291)

Comment: title alone will not make a page understandable - they need
to be clear and understandable, and unique (within the site or
subsite)

Proposed Change:

reword 2.4.3, e.g. "Web units have understandable/clear and unique titles."

----------------------------
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 support documents for both
success criteria.

The success criterion does not require that titles be unique because
the working group is concerned that requiring uniqueness will lead to
titles that are not as descriptive and usable. It may be very
difficult to create titles that are descriptive, unique, and
reasonably short. For example, a Web unit that generates titles
dynamically based on its content might need to include part of the
dynamic content in the title to ensure that it was unique. We are also
concerned that authors may make titles unique mechanically, such as by
including a unique number in the title that is unrelated to the
content. For these reasons, although we encourage unique titles in the
techniques for this success criterion, we are not including uniqueness
in the success criterion itself.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1292)

Comment: currently just "Providing skip links to enhance page
navigation" - this needs to be specified as a visible means of being
able to identify and utilise the ability to skip links

Proposed Change:

Strengthen this technique so that sighted, but physically disabled,
people can utilise the link

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

This issue has been discussed by the working group many times.
Providing skip links that are visible is one instance that satisfies
2.4.1 (A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are
repeated on multiple web pages), but is not required. Providing
visible skip navigation links was considered a difficult requirement
for all content at Level A because of the potential for visual clutter
making content harder to understand. However, the Working Group
recognizes the importance of visible skip navigation for switch users,
those using techniques that generate keyboard strokes slowly and
others, and have changed the Example 2 in G1 to reflect this. A note
has been added which says "NOTE: When possible, a visible link is
preferred over a hidden link. Visible links are necessary for those
navigating with a keyboard including switch users, those using
techniques that generate keyboard strokes slowly, screen magnification
software users, screen reader users working with sighted collegues,
keyboard only users and those navigating using voice recognition
software."


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 32:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1293)

Comment: the current wording is hard to comprehend - why not use the
simpler wording from WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.1?

Proposed Change:

Simplify the language.

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

We have struggled to find simpler ways to express these success
criteria so that the success criteria are descriptive rather than
imperative, and so that it is clear that the mechanism for identifying
the link target must be programmatically determinable, that is,
defined so that user agents and assistive technology can use it.
Checkpoint 13.1 identifies what must be done (identify the link
target), but does not specify how, even for HTML. The wording of 13.1
might lead to the conclusion that alt text on an image used as a link
is not acceptable, or that describing the link target in text
preceding the link is acceptable. There is also some ambiguity as to
whether "target" refers to the window in which the link will be
displayed or the contents that will be displayed.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1294)

Comment: The Guideline says "Help users avoid mistakes ..." - none of
the SC appear to address this aspect. THey all seem to relate to the
second part "... make it easy to correct mistakes that do occur".
Surely recommendations such as linear form design, clear and
understanable labels, placing examples before the form control,
providing instructions, etc, would address the first part.

Proposed Change:

add some SC to address "Help users avoid mistakes"

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

We have created a Level AA success criterion intended to help users
avoid errors: "Labels or instructions are provided when content
requires user input".

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1295)

Comment: What is the point of having 3.1.1 at Level 1, but 3.1.2 at
Level 2? My screen reader will then just read the entire page in the
web unit language!

Proposed Change:

Move 3.1.2 to Level 1

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

There were requests to combine SC 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move their
levels up and to move them down. After much discussion, the consensus
of the working group was to leave them in the current positions.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1296)

Comment: needs a qualifier

Proposed Change:

change wording to "The natural language of each passage or phrase in
the Web unit can be programmatically determined when it differes from
the natural language of the web unit"

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

The working group believes that current wording of the success
criterion is sufficient, since the default human language is used for
any text that does not otherwise have a language specified. We have
rewritten the Intent section of How To Meet 3.1.2 to make this
clearer.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1297)

Comment: Why is a word different from a phrase?

Proposed Change:

Drop the Note!

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

This note is referring to "individual words or phrases that have
become part of the primary language of the content".  "Rendezvous" is
an example of a word and "a la carte" an example of a group of words
(or a phrase) relevant to this scenario.  The group does deem the use
of both "word" and "phrase" in this note necessary to the outline of
this success criterion.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000101c6964a$9c7e3160$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1298)

Comment: Everyones I speak to has trouble with the UN definition approach

Proposed Change:

Why not just say 'X years of schooling'? Or something else equally
understandable drawn from the UN definition.

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

The success criterion relies on the UN definition because it takes
into account cultural differences in education systems. The Working
Group did not want to base the success criterion on a particular
country's educational system. The UN definition provides a framework
for translating the purpose of the success criterion into the
specifics for different countries.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001b01c69664$ec069c30$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1299)

Comment: 3.2.2 says no change of context "beyond moving to the next
field in tab order" - for non-visual browsers, thes may mean they miss
out on important aspects of the content without even knowing about
them. Very dnagerous!

Proposed Change:

Drop the words that are in the brackets.

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

We have removed the exception. Note that this behavior is still
permitted, but only if the user has been warned about it in advance.
Auto-advancing over other content is not recommended, but
auto-advance-focus can be an important accessibility aid for the
mobility impaired when used well.

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

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001b01c69664$ec069c30$011610ac@yourdh7axfhyur
(Issue ID: LC-1300)

Comment: Several WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that are still very important
for some people with disabilities are missing from WCAG 2.0:-

1.5 (text equivalents for image map links) - important for people with
some learning difficulties (some people are text oriented, others are
graphics oriented)

3.4 (relative units) - important for visually impaired people (and
others) with varying display resolutions

5.5 (data table summaries - describing the table structure) -
important for screen-reader users

10.5 (separating links visually) - acknowledged as important for some
people with cognitative disabilities

13.8 (front loading) - important for many people with reading difficulties

14.1 (clear language) - important for many people with reading
difficulties; also the related SC are now Level 3 (cf P1 in WCAG 1.0)

14.3 (consistent presentation) - important for many people with
reading difficulties, visual impairments, and cognitative disabilities

I acknowledge that some of these may not be machine testable, but they
are human (consensus) testable.

Proposed Change:

Add these Checkpoints back in as WCAG 2.0 SC.

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

1.5 (text equivalents for image map links) - important for people with
some learning difficulties (some people are text oriented, others are
graphics oriented)

Response:
Image maps are non-text content and they are links. Therefore, this
requirement is covered under Success Criteria 1.1.1, 2.4.4, and 2.4.5.
HTML technique H24 "Providing text alternatives for the area elements
of image maps" is a sufficient technique for these success criteria.

--

3.4 (relative units) - important for visually impaired people (and
others) with varying display resolutions

Response:
We have added two new success criterion to address these concerns:

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.

--

5.5 (data table summaries - describing the table structure) -
important for screen-reader users

Response:
This is addressed by Success Criterion 1.3.1 and technique H73.

--

10.5 (separating links visually) - acknowledged as important for some
people with cognitive disabilities

Response:
We have added an advisory technique to GL 3.1, 1.3 and 2.4  titled
"Making links visually distinct."

--

13.8 (front loading) - important for many people with reading difficulties

Response:
This is addressed by an advisory technique listed under SC 2.4.6
(formerly 2.4.5), "Starting section headings with unique information".

--

14.1 (clear language) - important for many people with reading
difficulties; also the related SC are now Level AAA (cf P1 in WCAG
1.0)

Response:
A characteristic that is important to WCAG 2.0 is the testability of
each success criterion. We have not been able to create a testable
description of "clear language." We have tried to cover this in some
of the success criteria and have added advisory techniques in
Guideline 3.1. However, there is no direct mapping.

--

14.3 (consistent presentation) - important for many people with
reading difficulties, visual impairments, and cognitive disabilities

Response:
Aspects of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.3 are required by WCAG 2.0 Guideline
SC 3.2.3 and SC 3.2.4. There is no Success Criterion in WCAG 2.0 that
is as broad as WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.3, so aspects of it do not
relate.

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 04:03:24 UTC