Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

Dear Alex Li,

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: clarify differences between text, images of text and
visually rendered text
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0059.html
(Issue ID: 1978)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Document: W2
Item Number: Guideline 1.4: Make it easier for people with disabilities to ...
Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: Clarification of Text, image of text, and visually
randered text
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

We have a number of terms around text that should be defined or
explained.  The difference between text, image of text, and visually
randered text is not obvious.  Image of text deserve a clarification
too.  Does the coca cola logo count as a image of text?  I'm not
sure...  What about an icon that contains numbers or letters such as
the spellcheck icon on MS Words (it contains the letters "ABC" and a
checkmark)?  Does a photo of a library bookshelf or city street with
lots of signs and ad count as image of text.  I don't think so, but
that's not obvious to a reader.  The significance of "visually
randered" text in 1.4.4 ought to be explained as well.

Proposed Change:
Add terms in glossary or simplify the terms.

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

Standard practice is to not define words that are used in the normal
way or where there is no ambiguity between which definition to use in
a suitable dictionary. These words are all used in the traditional way
so we did not feel it appropriate to add them to the "already very
long" glossary. We have added the following phrases in the
"understanding" document however to make it easier for people who are
not as familiar with these words.

1.4.3 Intent:

"The previously-mentioned contrast requirements for text also apply to
images of text (text that has been rendered into pixels and then
stored in an image format) as stated in SC 1.4.3."

1.4.5 Intent:

"The previously-mentioned contrast requirements for text also apply to
images of text (text that has been rendered into pixels and then
stored in an image format) as stated in SC 1.4.5."

1.4.4 and 1.4.7 Intent (after "visually rendered text" in the first sentence):

"(text characters that have been displayed so that they can be seen
[vs. text characters that are still in data form such as ASCII])"

1.4.3 and 1.4.5 Intent:

This requirement applies to situations in which images of text were
intended to be understood as text. Incidental text, such as in
photographs that happen to include a street sign, are not included.
Stylized text, such as in corporate logos, should be treated in terms
of its function on the page, which may or may not warrant including
the content in the text alternative.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Adding "at least" to second sentances of 1.4.3 & 1.4.5
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0111.html
(Issue ID: 2000)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Document: W2
Item Number: Guideline 1.4: Make it easier for people with disabilities to ...
Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Summary of Issue: Adding \"at least\" to second sentances of 1.4.3 & 1.4.5
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I think we meant to say large-scale text or image of text has <new> at
least </new> a contrast ratio of 3:1 (1.4.3) or 5:1 (1.4.5).

Proposed Change:
1.4.3 Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 5:1,
except if the text is pure decoration. Larger-scale text or images of
text can have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.

1.4.5 Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 7:1,
except if the text is pure decoration. Larger-scale text or images of
text can have a contrast ratio of at least 5:1.

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

We have modified the success criteria as follows:

1.4.3 Contrast Minimum: Text and images of text have a contrast ratio
of at least 5:1, and large-scale text and images of text have a
contrast ratio of at least 3:1.

1.4.5 Contrast (Enhanced): Text and images of text have a contrast
ratio of at least 7:1, and large-scale text or images of text have a
contrast ratio of at least 5:1.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Disabled elements should have a lower contrast ratio for
the functional purpose of not drawing attention.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0093.html
(Issue ID: 2003)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Proposed Change:
1.4.3 Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 5:1,
except if the text is pure decoration. Larger-scale text, images of
text, and disabled components can have a contrast ratio of 3:1.


1.4.5 Text (and images of text) have a contrast ratio of at least 7:1,
except if the text is pure decoration. Larger-scale text, images of
text, and disabled components can have a contrast ratio of 5:1.

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

RESPOND WITH

We agree that disabled components need not be affected. We have
reworded the provisions as follows:

1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): Text and images of text have a contrast
ratio of at least 5:1, and large-scale text and images of text have a
contrast ratio of at least 3:1, except for the following:

   * Inactive User Interface: If text content is part of an inactive
user interface component, then no minimum contrast requirement
applies.
   * Decoration or Incidental: If text content is pure decoration, or
is incidental text in an image, then no minimum contrast requirement
applies.
   * Invisible: If text is not visible to anyone, then no minimum
contrast requirement applies.

Note: Success Criteria 1.4.3 and 1.4.5 can be met via a contrast
control available on or from the page.

1.4.5 Contrast (Enhanced): Text and images of text have a contrast
ratio of at least 7:1, and large-scale text or images of text have a
contrast ratio of at least 5:1, except for the following:

   * Inactive User Interface: If text content is part of an inactive
user interface component, then no minimum contrast requirement
applies.
   * Decoration or Incidental: If text content is pure decoration, or
is incidental text in an image, then no minimum contrast requirement
applies.
   * Invisible: If text is not visible to anyone, then no minimum
contrast requirement applies.

Note: Success Criteria 1.4.3 and 1.4.5 can be met via a contrast
control available on or from the page.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Example in the intent for change of context is not a change
of context
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0112.html
(Issue ID: 2010)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The second sentence, "Changes in context, such as changing the input
fields based on the value of a radio button, can confuse users who do
not easily perceive the change or are easily distracted by changes."
contains an example that is clearly defined NOT a change of context.

Proposed Change:
Either replace the example with a real change of context, such as
launching a new windows, or strike the example all together.

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

Agree. The example has been removed.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: How does "I accept this license agreement" type operation conform
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0407.html
(Issue ID: 2272)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Typically, these license agreements or user agreements are not much
more than a block of very long legal text and an accept button.  Now
that the term form is replaced with web page in 3.3.3, it looks as if
these common agreement pages are now applicable under 3.3.3.  Does
check the radio button or activating the accept button meet this SC?

Proposed Change:
Write a technique for this one after debate.  Not sure what we want to do here.

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

Having an "Accept" button alone would not be sufficient to meet the
success criteria. We have clarified by adding a sufficient technique
in 3.3.4 to read, "Having a checkbox in addition to a submit button".

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:00:17 UTC