- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:28:00 -0700
- To: "Gian Sampson-Wild" <gian@tkh.com.au>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Comment 21: Level A and AA don't apply to all web sites Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0119.html (Issue ID: 2334) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Apparently Level A and Level AA SC must be able to be applied to all web content. Many comments that I submitted came back with "we'd love to put that in a lower level but it doesn't apply to all web content so we can't" (I'm paraphrasing). I don't believe you can argue that all Level 1 and 2 SC must apply to all web pages because there are many Level 1 and 2 SC that cannot be applied to all web pages, such as SC 2.4.4 (A) which refers to link text - not all web pages will have link text (ie. a one page site) or SC 3.2.2 (A) which refers to a user interface component or SC 3.3.1 (A) which refers to an input error (which therefore requires an input). Proposed change: Remove the requirement that Level 1 and Level 2 SC must apply to all web pages and reallocate SC according to importance to people with disabilities --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The success criteria have been worded as properties of the content in such a way that the statement is true when there is no corresponding content. For example, "The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text and its programmatically determined link context" is true when there are no links. Some success criteria can not evaluate to "true" for some Web pages due to the inherent nature of the content or functionality. We believe that every success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is important to someone with some disability. One of the lessons of WCAG 1.0 was that the interpretation that checkpoints at higher levels were less important to people with disabilities meant that some disabilities were being considered less important than other disabilities. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 22: LC-1129: make critical examples key terms? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0130.html (Issue ID: 2335) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 102: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1129) There are examples in the Intent section Proposed Change: All examples should be in the Examples or Failures section ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The examples in this item are not examples of the success criterion or meeting the success criterion but rather examples of what we mean by one of the terms in the success criterion. So these particular examples can't go in the examples section. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- Then perhaps this should be in the "key terms" section? I am concerned that people will skip over the "intent" section and miss the important definition information provided by these examples. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have added some examples to the definition of "change of context": "Submitting a form, opening a new window, or moving focus to a different component are examples of changes of context" ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 23: LC-1069: programmatically determined Source: http://http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0107.html (Issue ID: 2336) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 46: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1069) Stylesheets: It could be argued that the sequence of content can always be programmatically determined- otherwise it could not be presented to the user in that particular sequence. Because 1.3.3 maps to checkpoint 6.1, it is obvious that what is meant by the WCAG2 SC is that if style sheets are used to manipulate the layout of text, then the layout without style sheets must present a meaningful alternative. However it can be argued that simply because a user agent (ie browser) can interpret the style sheet to present information in a certain way, that it is automatically programmatically determinable. Proposed Change: Clarify the SC 1.3.3 ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Please note that the the definition of programmatically determined specifically covers support by assistive technologies: "determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities". CSS can be used to position items visually on a page. While the position is of course programatically determined, the reading order on the basis of CSS positioning is not, because CSS lacks layout concepts such as "previous" or "next" that would define, unambiguously, the proper reading order of a graphical layout. In theory, advanced heuristics might be able to extrapolate this information, but such approaches are not supported by current tools so this is not a sufficient technique at this time. Therefore, this success criterion does have relevance and it is recommended to follow the sufficient techniques provided. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- If this is the case then I believe that the term "programmatically determined" should be replaced with something like "supported by AT". The term "programmatically determined" indicates that information can be determined programmatically which is not what it appears the Working Group means at this point. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The term does mean supported by AT. But it also means supported by the accessibility features in user agents. So we cannot change it to only 'supported by AT'. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 24: LC-1064: validity Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0109.html (Issue ID: 2337) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 41: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1064) 4.1: There should be (preferably at Level 1) a requirement for content to validate Proposed Change: Create a Level 1 SC requiring validation ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is not part of the specification. The working group must work within its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our number one technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- The points you raise here could be applied to numerous SC within WCAG2. For instance it is possible to provide a site with images that do not have any ALT attributes (a violation of Guideline 1.1.1) and not present any accessibility barriers - for instance if the images were all spacer gifs. It is also possible to enhance accessibility in some situations by violating any number of SC - for instance when providing videos to people with cognitive disabilities to convey information provided in the text (this does not therefore need a text equivalent but it doesn't need to be marked up with captions and audio descriptions). There is an exception in WCAG2 for this latter example as there could be for validity. I see nothing wrong with saying "produce valid documents except where additional accessibility features force invalid code". As for the Working Group working within its charter - there are also many situations where you could argue that SC do not *entirely* relate to accessibility. Error prevention would be one example. Even alt attributes do not relate entirely to accessibility due to their use as a tool tip in several major browsers. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The Working Group does not agree that its stance on validity is inconsistent with the treatment of other Success Criteria. Success Criterion 1.1.1 makes specific provisions for spacer images with the "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible" point, and a site using only spacer images would conform to WCAG as long as the images were marked so they could be ignored by AT. The Working Group has also been careful to avoid creating success criteria that it might be necessary to violate to enhance accessibility. The Working Group also has been careful to remain within its charter. The example about error correction does benefit more than just users with disabilities, but the Working Group has determined that the impact of errors on people with disabilities is disproportionately larger than on people without disabilities, and therefore is within the WCAG mandate to include. In the case of validity, however, the Working Group has not been able to make a parallel determination, and therefore has determined that a validity requirement, beyond the very specific subset provided, is in fact completely beyond the scope of the WG. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 25: LC-1066: Images for markup and SVG Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0110.html (Issue ID: 2338) Status: VERIFIED PARTIAL/OTHER ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 43: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1066) Images for markup: Seeing as this WCAG1 checkpoint does not map to a particular SC, does this mean that WCAG2 allows images to be used instead of markup, for example, images of text, instead of CSS-manipulated text? Or images for bullets instead of marked up bulleted lists? Proposed Change: Clarify the mapping of 3.1. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself and will now be included in the WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 transition materials. This will make it easier to update the mapping as new techniques are developed. The working group will work in coordination with the EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping is updated. To answer your question, WCAG 2.0 does not prohibit the use of images of text provided that they have text alternatives. There is, however, an advisory technique that advises against the use of images of text in order to acheive a desired visual effect. Success criterion 1.3.1 lists the use of , and for lists as a sufficient technique. Other techniques could be used, but text alternatives would have to make the information and relationships conveyed through this use of images clear. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- What about SVG? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- If SVG is accessibility supported, it allows for more accessible solutions in many of these situations. We welcome contributions of SVG techniques. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 26: LC-1063: testing 4.1.1 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0112.html (Issue ID: 2339) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 40: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1063) 4.1.1: How is this to be tested? Proposed Change: Provide information ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC 4.1.1 to clarify that it must be possible to parse content without the need for user agent repair. The revised SC reads as follows: 4.1.1 Content implemented using markup languages has elements with complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their specifications, and are nested according to their specifications. (Level A) Note: Start and end tags that are missing a critical character in their formation, such as a closing angle bracket or a mismatched attribute value quote are not complete. Information about how to test this criterion is available in Understanding 4.1.1. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- My question is more about *how* this will be tested - not *what* to test. Is there a tool out there that can test this (without testing validity). How does the WG intend people to test this? How will the WG test this during the implementation review? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Validation tools can be used to test this success criterion since these requirements are a subset of validity. Full validity is not required though. Only those components listed in the SC. Using a validator has the added benefit of making authors aware of all of their validity violations and encouraging them to address as many as possible. It is also possible to test this by manual inspection of the code. While that method is painstaking and unlikely to be used often, it meets the definition of testability. It would also be possible to develop a simpler tool that checked for just these violations *in HTML pages*. However, the working group is not aware of any such targeted tools at this time. *For XHTML and other XML vocabularies, any conforming XML parser can be used to check this. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 27: LC-1060: clarify 3.2.1 and 2.2.5 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0114.html (Issue ID: 2340) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 38: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1060) 3.2.1 & 2.2.5: From my reading, 3.2.1 outlaws changes of context when a component receives focus, but 2.2 allows changes in content for no reason (only outlawing at L3) Proposed Change: Rewrite SC 3.2.1 and 2.2.5 ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- While it is possible that the result of a time limit expiration may be a change in context or content, success criterion 2.2.1 and 3.2.1 (both at level A) work together to ensure that both unexpected changes in context as the result of a component receving focus (3.2.1) and changes in content resulting from a time-out (2.2.1) will not occur unexpectedly. While exceptions to success criterion 2.2.1 for real-time events and activities where timing is essential exist, guideline 2.2 does not allow changes in content for no reason. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- I interpreted this SC differently from the stated intention above so perhaps the WG should consider clarifying some of the SC to avoid such confusion --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Guideline 2.2 does not speak to the issue of changes of content. It sets requirements for processes that occur after a timeout, which may or may not involve a change of content. 3.2.1 puts specific limits on changes of context when an object receives focus. There may be situations in which both of these are applicable and conforming content must meet the requirements of both. There may be other situations, however, in which only one is applicable. In order to clarify this issue we have added the following to the understanding document: "Note: This provision acts to ensure that changes in content or context as a result of a time-out will not occur unexpectedly, preventing users from completing tasks. While exceptions to success criterion 2.2.1 where timing is essential exist, guideline 2.2 in general limits changes in content for no reason. This provisions should be considered in conjunction with provision 3.2.1 which puts limits on changes of content or context as a result of user action." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 28: LC-1059: SC 3.1.4 should be Level A Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0115.html (Issue ID: 2341) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 37: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1059) 3.1.4: If information is provided in an abbreviated form without expansion, then the content is essentially inaccessible to people that cannot interpret the abbreviation. People who use screen readers and people with cognitive disabilities often have difficulties interpreting abbreviations. Proposed Change: There should be a Level 1 version of this SC which requires that important abbreviated information is marked up, or expanded the first time it is used in a page ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- As outlined by the different situations in SC 3.1.4, providing the expansion for the first use of an abbreviation is only a sufficient technique when the abbreviation only has one expansion on that web page, e.g., Dr. is only used as an abbreviation for doctor or for drive, but not for both. Otherwise, providing the expansion on the first use will be more confusing for users with cognitive disabilities. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- My comment pertains not to the SC itself but the level it is situated at. I believe this SC needs to be at Level A --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Many fields include acronyms among their jargon, and these would have the same difficulties discussed in our response to your comment on 3.1.3. A computer science paper with links on all the abbreviations would be very difficult to read. The working group feels that this is the appropriate level for this success criterion because it can't be applied to this type of technical content, and is therefore not appropriate for all types of sites. For these reasons, the group feels that is should remain at level AAA. It should be noted that acronyms were AAA in WCAG 1.0 as well. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 29: LC-1057: GL 3.3 needs Level A SC Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0116.html (Issue ID: 2342) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 35: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1057) 2.5: There should be a Level 1 SC which requires error prevention techniques, such as providing instructions at the beginning of a form Proposed Change: Create a new SC. I am happy to help with this ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- In addition to success criteria 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 in the April 2006 draft, we have created two new success criteria intended to help users avoid errors: 1. A Level AA success criterion "Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input". 2. A Level AAA success criterion that is similar to the level AA (was 2.5.3) success criterion except there are no exceptions. "For forms that require the user to submit information, at least one of the following is true: 1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible. 2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for input errors before going on to the next step in the process. 3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the transaction." ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- I still believe there needs to be a SC at Level 1. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have moved SC 3.3.4 from AA to A. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 30: LC-1056: SC 2.4.8 should be Level A Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0117.html (Issue ID: 2343) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 34: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1056) 2.4.4 & 2.4.8: 2.4.8 should move to Level 1 and replace 2.4.4. People who use screen readers often navigate through a page by tabbing from link to link and therefore can determine the content on the page. Allowing for link text to not describe the target of the link means that these users will find it difficult to navigate. Proposed Change: Move to Level 1 and delete 2.4.4 ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- SC 2.4.8 is at level AAA because of the potential usability problems introduced by requiring that the link text alone be sufficient. For instance, in a table of links, repeating the table header information in each cell makes the table much more difficult to use. The basic requirement that assistive technology be able to determine the purpose of the link is covered by SC 2.4.4. This success criterion has been moved to level A. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- I don't believe it is the WG's responsibility to determine usability issues. This issue you cite could be avoided by a different layout or design and should not be used as a reason why such an important requirement is relegated to the highest level. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The working group recognizes that the link list mechanism provided by user agents and assistive technology will provide best results when SC 2.4.8 is satisfied. While the working group encourages authors to make link text as descriptive as possible out of context, we do not feel that this success criterion can be satisfied for all Web pages. For Example: - a page has book titles followed by PDF, HTML, DOC. - Article name (long) followed by a sentence and the link "more" - GOOGLE search where each entry has text plus the following links [translate this page] HTML and [CACHED] and [SIMILAR PAGES] - toolbar with menus with an arrow icon - the link says "open". Having full links makes the page very cluttered, harder cognitively to find things when the same long (sometimes multi-line) text is repeated with one word different, and is very long to listen to for those not adept at auditory skipping (or where unique information is back end loaded) These issues were considered carefully for a long time, the working group feels that having 2.4.4 at Level A and this issue addressed at Level AAA strikes the right balance. While user agent and assistive technology support for finding the link context is poorer than we would like, we have checked that there is at least one case of support for each of the types of link context we have listed as sufficient techniques. So a user who has tabbed to a link can ask for those pieces of context without leaving the link. We hope that if authors satisfy SC 2.4.4 and make link context programmatically determinable, user agent developers will find a way to let users access the context when needed, such as when the link list is created. The first techniques listed in 2.4.4 are: "G91: Providing link text that describes the purpose of a link H30: Providing link text that describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements (HTML) ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 31: LC-1054: change level - most web pages are part of a set of web pages Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0123.html (Issue ID: 2344) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 33: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1054) 2.4.7: This should be at Level 1. Determining the current location is sometimes very difficult for both people who use screen readers and people with cognitive disabilities Proposed Change: Move to Level 1 ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- This success criterion is at level AAA because not all web pages are part of a set of web pages to which this success criterion can be applied. The working group agrees that when it does apply, it is very important for people with these disabilities. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- I think the WD should represent the most common situation and the most common situation is that a web page is part of a set of web pages. Please also see my comment on applicability [[Recorded at http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=2334]] --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- This is positioned at Level AAA because it can not always be applied to all types of Web content. Many Websites are Web rather than Linear in nature. that is, they are not a progression of pages but a cluster of pages that are all interlinked. Sites (or sets of pages) like this are very hard to discuss in terms of "position". A complex visual map showing all the links between the pages can be constructed but is incomprehensible to people with cognitive disabilities and extraordinarily hard or impossible to describe in words. In fact you have to view it interactively to be able to see it visually. Because such sites and sets of web pages do not lend them selves to mapping this is in Level AAA. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 32: LC-1049: Level of 3.2.3 vs 2.3.2 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0124.html (Issue ID: 2345) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 29: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1049) 2.3.2: This should be L2 or there should be a L2 equivalent Proposed Change: Create L2 equivalent ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Because of the limitations that SC 3.2.3 places on presentation, the working group feels that level AAA is appropriate. Not all Guidelines have success criteria at every level. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- Interesting response seeing as SC 3.2.3 is at Level AA. Perhaps its limits on presentation was not so constrained? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We appologize. There was a typo in our response. We typed #3.2.3 instead of 2.3.2. It was a response to your comment about 2.3.2 (Three Flashes). Please consider it a response to issue LC-1049 which was your comment about 2.3.2 (Three Flashes) ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 33: LC-1062: SC 4.1.2 too difficult to understand Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0129.html (Issue ID: 2346) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- omment 1: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1062) 4.1.2: What is the "name" or the "role"? What does it mean "values can be set by the user"? Proposed Change: Rewrite SC 4.1.2 ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The terms "name" "role" and "programmatically set" are each defined in the glossary. How to Meet SC 4.1.2 describes the intent of this success criterion and provides techniques about how to meet it. With regard to your suggestion to rewrite 4.1.2, without more information about the problems you see with this provision or specific suggestions for how to rewrite this criterion, we are unsure how to address your comment. ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- My concern is that this SC is so full of jargon (and terms that require glossary entries) that it does not make sense. I still have trouble determining what this SC is meant to achieve and I have worked on this SC when I was on the WG. I can only get a sense of what this SC aims to achieve by reading the techniques section. I think it needs to be rewritten and, if necessary, it needs to be broken up and moved to other areas. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- This success criterion addresses requirements on authors who are using programming technologies to create user interface components, and can be expected to understand the terms. It is expressed in technology neutral language so that it is applicable across different scripting technologies and across different environments that support different accessibility APIs. To accomplish this, it uses technical terminology to describe those requirements. While we have defined the technical terms in the glossary, we recognize that this is still a difficult success criterion to understand for people not familiar with programming concepts. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 34: LC-1130: include examples of failures Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0134.html (Issue ID: 2347) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- omment 103: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1130) Needs more examples ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- This success criterion requires that you not do something. We don't provide examples of things not to do because they can be misunderstood as examples of how to conform. We tried to think of positive examples of thing to do that didn't violate the provision but that was pretty much anything. We have provided one. If you can think of another positive example (not an example of a failure) we would be happy to include it as well. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- Wouldn't "common failures" be an example of things one should not do? That seems to be a perfect place for these kind of examples and have been used throughout the document --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Common Failures are a particular class of Technique which are clearly identified as Failures. Currently, there are 2 common failures for 3.2.1 F52: Failure of SC 3.2.1 due to opening a new window as soon as a new page is loaded without prior warning F55: Failure of SC 2.1.1 and 3.2.1 due to using script to remove focus when focus is received If you feel there should be other common failures, please feel free to submit them. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 35: LC-1091: Techniques are script heavy Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0098.html (Issue ID: 2348) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer (Issue ID: LC-1091) Script: The techniques and examples are very script heavy. It appears, to a casual reader, that the W3C is advocating scripting above other technologies, such as PDF, XHTML or CSS. Proposed Change: Ensure that techniques and examples are evenly spread over a variety of technologies ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The examples have to match the technologies. The scripting examples are only used where we are trying to demonstrate dynamic content. Scripting is the most common method for this. If you have other examples you think could be included, please submit them. We are always looking for additional good examples. ---------------------------- Response from GSW: ---------------------------- I am not a Member of the Working Group. If I was I would be happy to write such techniques. I believe that these types techniques are a direct result of the people involved in the Working Group and therefore it is inherently biased towards these types of technologies --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- There is no need to be a Working Group member to submit techniques. We are openly inviting the web community to submit techniques that they think would sufficiently meet various Success Criteria. We are also open to contributions of advisory techniques. This process will also continue after the WCAG is released.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:28:12 UTC