- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:25:04 -0700
- To: "Jan Richards (on behalf of UAWG)" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear UAAG, Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that, we would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions. Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of the entire document at this time. Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our 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 WCAG 2.0 Editor's Draft of May-October 2007 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0. Regards, 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: Respecting OS keyboard accessibility features Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0374.html (Issue ID: 2243) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under 2.1.2 it might make sense to reference respecting the operating system keyboard accessibility settings (like StickyKeys, etc). Proposed Change: Consider referencing operating system keyboard accessibility settings (like StickyKeys, etc) --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Operating system keyboard accessibility features are controlled by the operating system in concert with the user agent, and cannot be overridden by Web content. However, content may generate keyboard events that interact unpredictably with operating system keyboard accessibility features. Therefore a paragraph has been added to Understanding 2.1.1 to explain this. (Understanding 2.1.2 refers the user to Understanding 2.1.1 because the to provisions are a pair). ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: "Interruptions" may warrant a higher priority Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0375.html (Issue ID: 2244) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- In 2.2.5, the Intrerruptions Success Criteria is a level AAA. Proposed Change: Suggest Level AA. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- This success criterion requires control of the server that may not be possible for some authors and technologies. There are also valid reasons, such as financial security or personal information where this cannot be done because it is against regulations to preserve any of this information once a session expires or is terminated. It is also a new success criterion in WCAG 2.0 and there is little if any experience with the requirement and the solutions. For these reasons the Working Group feels it is best positioned at level AAA. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: Defintion of "programmatically determined link context" refers to "sentence". Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0376.html (Issue ID: 2245) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- There is no semantic markup for a sentence and no programmatic way for a screen reader to determine a sentence in HTML, so its better not to use that term. A screen reader should be able to handle the other techniques involving parent element text, element attributes, and element relationships. Proposed Change: Drop requirements involving sentence parsing. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Respond with: While you are correct that there is no semantic markup for sentence, many screenreaders provide keyboard commands which allow users to read the current, next or previous sentence. We have added user agent support notes to G53 that include additional detail about these features. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Referencing User Agents and Assistive Technologies Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0377.html (Issue ID: 2247) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- In "Accessibility Supported", etc. assistive technologies are often listed before browser accessibility features. Browser accessibility features are enhanced or supplemented by assistive technologies and user agents transfer information to the assistive technology via APIs etc. Proposed Change: In "Accessibility Supported" and throughout suggest where they are mentionned specifically, list browsers ahead of assistive technologies and clarify that browsers pass information on to assistive technologies (i.e. while an assistive technology can be part of a combination of softwares that make up a user agent, it cannot be a user agent on its own, while a browser can). We also suggest WCAG-WG and UAWG work together on these issues. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- While it is true that AT works through user agents, the key part of Accessibility Supported is support by AT for the technology. Since support for the technology by access features in user agents is also important, we also list this. But the focus is on AT support since that is the most critical and the one most often incomplete. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Definition of "Mechanism" needs clarification Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0378.html (Issue ID: 2248) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The definition of "Mechanism" mentions user agents but without a link. Proposed Change: Links to "user agent" and perhaps a connection with "Accessibility Supported". --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have added the link to both "user agent" and "assistive technologies" to the note following this definition.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 02:25:27 UTC