- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:22:18 -0700
- To: "Edward L. Myers III" <emyers@azdisabilitylaw.org>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Edward Myers, 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: Remove three levels concept Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0167.html (Issue ID: 1956) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Document: W2 Item Number: Components of Web Accessibility Part of Item: Comment Type: general comment Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): I think having the A, AA, AAA standards are confusing and will lead to some misapplication in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you are saying that A is accessible then that will probably be the standard that can be held up under the law as it is the bare minimum. Proposed Change: I would do away with the three tier concept as it will lead to a very low standard of accessibility as being acceptable for persons with disabilities. We don't have it in physical structures for accessibility and we shouldn't have it in the web. (existing buildings have their own standards and maybe you want to do that with websites). --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Web technology, or information technology in general, presents challenges unequal to that of buildings constructions. The three levels were provided because of the different contexts in which WCAG might be used. In some instances, a great level of accessibility would be appropriate. Even all three levels however will not provide access to everyone and this is also stated in the guidelines. The current state of web technology and our knowledge cannot guarantee any web content be fully accessible to every person with a disability or combination of disabilities, especially certain types of severe disabilities. Other structures were explored including just two levels (required and advisory) but after much study that was found to work less well. Interpretation of the ADA applicability to the Web is, unfortunately, outside the working group's scope. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Levels on conformance Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0167.html (Issue ID: 2026) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I think having the A, AA, AAA standards are confusing and will lead to some misapplication in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you are saying that A is accessible then that will probably be the standard that can be held up under the law as it is the bare minimum. Proposed Change: I would do away with the three tier concept as it will lead to a very low standard of accessibility as being acceptable for persons with disabilities. We don't have it in physical structures for accessibility and we shouldn't have it in the web. (existing buildings have their own standards and maybe you want to do that with websites). --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have looked at several different conformance models including one that has just SHALL and SHOULD provisions (which would be the one-tier approach you propose). It was found that that approach would not work for the variety of sites and uses the guidelines would have to meet. In the end, and after much discussion , it was determined that the three tier approach would work best.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:22:30 UTC