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

The responses below all seem fine to me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip J. Naylor AFRSPSoc,              Tel.: +44 (0) 117 331 7377
Scientific Computer Support Officer,       Fax.: +44 (0) 117 954 6833
Department of Engineering Mathematics,
University of Bristol.                     http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/0060522125632.AF10CDAE7D@w3c4-bis.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-570)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: ED
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> Actually this comment relates to the "Conformance" overview, which
> isn't selectable from the menu on the comments web form.
>
> It is a concern that organizations will retain the mindset that AA
> conformance is enough to claim "reasonable effort" in descrimination
> cases, even if their environment supports easy implementation of level
> 3 success criteria.  The change of approach from "priorities" to
> "levels" should be emphasised, especially that even AAA conformance
> does not imply that a site is accessible.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Emphasise the paragraph beginning "This method of grouping success
> criteris differs...", especially the last sentence.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We clarified the meanings of the conformance levels to make WCAG 2.0's
> use of conformance level clearer. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels .
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522125759.84A64DAE90@w3c4-bis.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-571)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: ED
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> Typo.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Last sentence of "Choosing baseline technologies" should read
> "...users may have..." not "...users many have...".
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> This section has been rewritten and the error no longer occurs.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522130246.D35DB47B9F@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-572)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: TE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> It is not at all clear how one would provide a regular expression to
> scope a claim that would apply to a whole site except one or two
> diretories, e.g. the whole of http://www.example.com/ except /videos/
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Add examples for less straight forward conformance scope regular
> expressions.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> An example of both a boolean and a regular expression conformance
> claim has been added (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#
> uc-239-head
> ):
>
> Example 4: (using boolean logic) On 6 July 2008, http://example.com/
> AND NOT (http://example.com/archive/ OR
> http://example.com/publications/archive/) conforms to Web Content
> Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/. Double-A (AA)
> conformance. The documented set of accessibility-supported content
> technologies used for this claim is ISA- AsCTset#1-2008 at
> http://ISA.example.gov/AsCTsets/AS2-2008.
>
> Example 5: (using a regular expression) On 12 August 2008,
> http://www.example.com/(marketing|sales|contact)/.* conforms to Web
> Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/. Double-A (AA)
> conformance. The technologies that this content "relies upon" is:
> XHTML 1.0 Transitional. The technologies that this content "uses but
> does not rely upon" are CSS 1.0 and JavaScript 1.2.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522131106.6174B47B9F@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-573)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: TE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> Even after reading the \"Understanding...\" document, the difference
> between SCs 2.4.8 and 2.4.4 is very subtle and needs to be a lot
> clearer.
> N.B. any link where the link text alone indicates its purpose will
> already meet SC 2.4.4.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Reword, along the lines of:
> 2.4.8 The purpose of each link can be programmatically determined from
> extra information related to the link.
>
> ----------------------------
> 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:
>
>    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 5:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522131223.AC12147B9F@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-574)
>
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: GE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> The success criteria, stripped of the supporting documentattion, are
> amazingly concise - well done to all concerned.
>
> Proposed Change:
> (none)
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> Thank you.  We appreciate you taking the time to fill out the comment
> form to include this feedback.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 6:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522132004.82ACFBDA9@w3c4.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-575)
>
> Part of Item: Examples
> Comment Type: TE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> "breadcrumb trail" is no more an obvious term than many others in the
> glossary.
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Add glossary entry for "breadcrumb trail".
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We agree that the term needs explaining. The glossary only includes
> terms that are used in the guidelines. However, the term breadcrumb
> trail is in a link to a technique titled "Providing a Breadcrumb
> Trail".  Clicking on this link takes you to the technique description
> that begins with a description of exactly what a breadcrumb trail is
> and includes several examples.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 7:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522132839.2EF4447BA1@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-577)
>
> Part of Item: Applicability
> Comment Type: GE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
> The relationship with the main WCAG document should be bi-directional,
> and the document should be able to "stand alone",especially if (as I
> was) you're working from a printed copy of the document.
>
> Proposed Change:
> Add relevant SC text to the start of each of the "Failure" sections.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> Good idea.  We have changed the title "Technique referenced from" to
> "Failure relates to" and put the following links under that title
> * SC X.X.X
> * How to Meet SC X.X.X
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 8:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060522133129.8BE2CBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-578)
>
> Part of Item: Related Techniques
> Comment Type: GE
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> To aid navigation of hardcopy versions of the document, removing the
> need to keep refering to the table of contents.
>
> Proposed Change:
> Add the relevant section numbers to the internal link texts in
> "Related Techniques".
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have changed references to "Related Techniques" so that they
> include the Number of the techniques (e.g.  H45 ) along with the name.

Received on Friday, 25 May 2007 13:23:44 UTC