- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:14:17 -0700
- To: "Jan Richards (on behalf of WAI-AUWG)" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear AUWG, 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 "Technology" should be changed to allow synchronization with AUWG's definition of "content type" Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0184.html (Issue ID: 2045) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 should use a common term for technology/content-type. AUWG's problem with the current WCAG 2.0 definition of "technology" ("markup language, programming language, style sheet, data format, or API ") is the appearance of the term "API" in the list. For the record, ATAG 2.0's current definition of "content-type" is "A data format, programming or markup language that is intended to be retrieved and rendered by a user agent (e.g., HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, JavaScript or combinations).". Proposed Change: Remove "API" markup language, programming language, style sheet, or data format --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have removed the term "API" from the definition and have revised the definition slightly to harmonize with ATAG. It now reads: technology (Web content) mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents Note 1: As used in these guidelines "Web Technology" and the word "technology" (when used alone) both refer to Web Content Technologies. Note 2: Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic Web applications. Example: Some common examples of Web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: "Authoring tools" section has been removed Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0185.html (Issue ID: 2046) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The AUWG feels that the "Authoring tools" section, which was created by a joint effort between the WCAG-GL and AUWG provided valuable context for WCAG 2.0 and its apparent replacement by the text "Introduces guidelines on the design of authoring and evaluation tools." appears insufficent. Proposed Change: Restore the "Authoring tools" section: Authoring tools A large part of Web content is created using authoring tools. These tools often determine how Web content is implemented, either by making authoring decisions directly or by limiting the choices available to the author. As a result, authoring tools will play an important role in creating Web content that conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. At the same time, we recommend that all authors become familiar with the Guidelines because this will help in creating accessible content and coverage of the Guidelines may vary between tools. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have been told by many commenters to reduce the size of the introduction. We have therefore reduced it even more than the last draft, and adding this paragraph back would be out of proportion with the rest of the introduction. We have, by making the introduction shorter, provided a greater emphasis on the link to the authoring tools guidelines and to the document that covers all of the WAI guidelines.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:14:35 UTC