- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:23:03 -0700
- 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 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: 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 all. 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