W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032123j243bf508q517f3899569b506a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo" <coordina@sidar.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Emmanuelle Gutierrez y Restrepo,

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

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.


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: Lack of attention to the deaf people needs.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0078.html
(Issue ID: 1996)
Original Comment:

Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: Lack of attention to the deaf people needs.
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Once analyzed your answer, we (The WCAG2-espa discussion list of the
Iberoamerican Seminar about Dissability and Web Accessibility - SIDAR)
have reached the following agreement, as a conclusion:

Due to the possible sign language interpretation and web video
implementation problems according to each country resources we have
considered to propose a change focused to the introduction of sign
language on a reduced way. It means, only in the cases which the
technological and economic resources allow it.

The inclusion of brief videos in sign language does not imply a
disproportionate cost, but a small investment that results in
accessibility to deaf people. Like each country has its oral language
also each country has its own sign language and each country has
professionals of translation or native professionals of sign language.

Also, the technological implications of picking up images to display
them in the web page do not entail any action outside the reach of

Current technology allows downloading or spreading of this kind of
content by modem or by DSL with enough quality to understand it.

And WCAG 2 surely will have to accompany us by many years, so that
every year will be simpler and cheap to produce this type of videos.

Proposed Change:

To add a requirement to offer an alternative to have sign language
interpretation in order to explain the main goals (objectives) of the
site content in the web page presentation in those cases in which
technologic and economic resources allow it. Level (2).

Response from Working Group:

An advisory technique is included under SC 3.1.5 that reads,
"Providing sign language versions of information, ideas, and processes
that must be understood in order to use the content."

Conformance claims apply to Web pages and as such can be assessed or
verified externally. The suggested requirement would prevent an
assessment for conformance or verification of a conformance claim by
an external party since verification of a website owner's technology
and economic resources would not be possible in most cases.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC