- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:56:21 -0700
- To: "Adobe - Matt Morgan-May" <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Matt, 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: Definition of Web page Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2306) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Web page A very underpowered term when applied to formats other than HTML. Example 1 (virtual reality shopping) is a really far-fetched scenario, and itıs an awful one to have first. Though I would like to see how this would be applied to an environment like Second Life, where you can post just about any kind of content imaginable, including URIs that open in an external browser. Is Second Life a "Web page", or a collection of them, or a user agent, or all of the above? A PDF document, even a fairly complex one, would fit under the definition of ³Web page². But Flash is less cut and dry. Flash can be embedded as an object in a document, but itıs also a user agent (and in the case of Adobe AIR, formerly Apollo, it can itself be an HTML user agent). If we are delivering a UA to a user, and the author wants to conform to WCAG 2, do we then have to conform to UAAG instead? What about third-party authors of AIR applications? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Basically, a Web page is whatever is served at a URI. Particularly for web applications, different implementations of identical functionality may consist of different numbers of Web pages. One implementation may dynamically update the Web page content at a point where another implementation loads a new Web page. The working group wrestled a long time over what to do with technologies like Flash or Javascript where authors can implement their own user interface components. The user agent in these cases are the interpreters, and the responsibility for conforming to UAAG-like requirements becomes the author's. As a result, elements of UAAG have been incorporated into WCAG to the extent needed to handle these content created programmatic elements, and success criteria have been crafted so that they can be satisfied either by the user agent (in the case of more static technologies like HTML and PDF) or by the author directly when he is responsible for creating the user interface components. The author is ultimately responsible for ensuring that he has chosen a technology in which it is possible to satisfy WCAG ("accessibility supported") and has used that technology in a way that does satisfy WCAG. The Shopping example has been removed from the introduction and is provided only along with other examples in the definition and Understanding documents. (and is listed as the last example). It is not clear that Second-Life is actually a Web application rather than a downloaded application that is run from the desktop and that accesses data over the internet but, for the most part, not using http. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Programmatically determined Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2307) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Programmatically determined Does the author get to declare for which versions of UA or AT the content is programmatically determinable? How often will that determination be made, and by whom? Also, ³mark-up² should be ³markup². --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- In order for many people with disabilities to be able to use Web content, the Web content must work with their assistive technologies. Saying that it could work with software is not sufficient. Presumably the content works with the browser which is software - but not sufficient for many users with disabilities. And the ability for a utility or other special piece of software to access the information also would not be useful to users if the content did not actually work with assistive technologies. However it is not possible to work with ALL assistive technologies. As a result we have introduced the concept of Accessibility Supported. This refers to the ability of content technologies to work with assistive technologies. We are also providing methods for documenting support by different assistive technologies as well as the accessibility features in mainstream user agents. All instances of "mark-up" have been changed to "markup". ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: accessibility supported Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2308) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Accessibility supported Releasing a standard without even an informative pointer to a reference list of ³accessibility-supported² technologies is like coming out with a new car, but refusing to either certify your own mechanics, or point people to a resource where they can find one. The result in either case would be the same: consumers would have trouble finding trustworthy resources, and when things go wrong for them, they will begin to distrust the producer. Without a concrete set of technologies that meet these criteria, or at a bare minimum a set of pointers to definitions of accessibility-supported technologies, WCAG 2 is not fully defined. Also in this definition, GIF and MPEG are specified by name. But GIF cannot be considered an accessible enough format to meet the ³Web page² bar, and ³MPEG² isnıt a format, itıs a JTC1 WG: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, MPEG-7, and MPEG-21 are the standards they produce. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have described the information required to document the status of accessibility support for a technology at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixB.html . Determining which technologies are accessibility supported in different environments is beyond our scope. The working group does not have the resources to gather this information for all technologies, user agents, and assistive technologies. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Human language and Sign language Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2309) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Sign language A sign language is included under ³human language,² but that is not in the definition here. Also, sign language is not a visual language to people who are deaf and blind. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- A true sign language is an example of a human language, and is accepted as such by linguists and has legal recognition. The term visual in the definition is the same as stating that spoken English is an auditory language, in that it describes the medium of conveyance; not the ability of the receiver. However, it is true that some sign language systems have been developed for Deaf-Blind usage which rely only on tactile contact so we have clarified the definition: "language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans". ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Uses of "above" and "below" Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2310) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- 1.3.3 (Level A): ³Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components² In English-language documents, at least, it is commonly understood that ³above² refers to the content previous to that point (³hereto,² ³heretofore²), and ³below² refers to the content after that point (³hereafter,² ³hereinafter²). Provided that the content being referenced is in the appropriate place in the document order, there should be no restriction on statements such as ³Choose one of the links below:² or ³All of the above². --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Response to Reviewer: We have added this explanation about the uses of "above" and "below" to Understanding SC 1.3.3. "In some languages, it is commonly understood that "above" refers to the content previous to that point in the content and "below" refers to the content after that point. In such languages, if the content being referenced is in the appropriate place in the reading order and the references are unambiguous, statements such as "choose one of the links below" or "all of the above" would conform to this success criterion." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 6: 20dB difference Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2311) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- 1.4.6: ³Note: Background sound that meets this requirement will be approximately one quarter as loud as the foreground speech content.² As I understand it, the Decibel scale is log-10. A 20dB difference is not a factor of 4, it is a factor of 100. If the desired difference in sound is 4:1 foreground to background, the correct figure should be -6dB. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- For power 20dB would be 100x. For perceived loudness, 20dB is 4x or 4:1. For more information, refer to "About Decibels" (http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2004-About-dB/). ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: Guideline too broad Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2312) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Guideline 2.3: ³Do not create content that is known to cause seizures² The content being evaluated cannot be ³known to cause seizures² until it actually causes a seizure. What are known to cause seizures here are the flashing patterns specified by the document. Therefore, the guideline should read: ³Do not create flashing patterns that are known to cause seizures.² --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The guideline is meant to cover more than flashing. We don't have any more than flashing as a success criterion at this time. But, we have an advisory technique for avoiding patterns that cause seizures as well. If new types of content that cause seizures are discovered, they should also be avoided. However, you are correct that we shouldn't focus on content causing seizure, but rather, the method. We have therefore reworded Guideline 2.3 to say, "Do not design content in a way that is known to cause seizures." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 8: Obsolete level references Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0417.html (Issue ID: 2313) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under the heading: ³When referring to WCAG 2.0 from another standard with a shallı statement² There are references to ³Level 1², ³Level 2² and ³Level 3² that should be updated. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thanks for catching this. We have updated the draft as proposed. This section has become a Appendix B in Understanding WCAG 2.0.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 03:56:37 UTC