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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007 (1 of 2)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:34 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032132h7779093cnf1e1da03af63fbad@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Greg Lowney" <gcl-0039@access-research.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Greg Lowney,

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: LC-1149: "or its URI"
Source: http://http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2129)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Seems reasonable, but it "or its URI" means that it
may be up to the user or user agent to, say, change ".html" to "-text.html",
or, say, change "http://domain.com/products/prod1.htm" to
"http://domain.com/cgi-bin/textonly.pl?category=products&item=prod1" Is it
your intention that those be acceptable?}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

Expecting Assistive Technology to do this would only be sufficient if
it were actually  supported by Assistive Technology. This is made
clear by new language which says the mechanism must be accessibility
supported. Also note the document not longer uses "...or its URI".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: LC-1159 : can this ever fail?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2130)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment 14:
{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: Realistically, is there any content consisting of more
than one item where the sequence in which content is presented DOES NOT
affect its meaning? Would this SC be changed if that first conditional
clause were remove? Especially given that pretty much every unit has an
implicit, programmatically determinable order?}

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: This is minor, but the wording of the final clause
("and sequential navigation of interactive components is consistent with
that sequene" makes it sound as if this clause were putting a requirement on
the navigation order, when that is actually covered in another section and
would not be appropriate here. I suggest rewriting the final clause so the
whole reads ""When the sequence in which content is presented affects its
meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined that
is consistent with the sequential navigation of interactive components."}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

Respond with:

The first clause is needed to make clear that there are often a number
of different reading orders for a Web page that can satisfy the
success criteria. Here are several examples where the sequence does
not affect meaning:

1. The relative order of the main section of a Web page and a
navigation section does not affect their meaning. They could occur in
either order in the programmatically determined reading sequence.

2. A magazine article contains several callout sidebars. The order of
the article and the sidebars does not affect their meaning.

Regarding navigation, your wording seems to imply that the default
navigation sequence would be the best reading order. We do not believe
that would always be true. The current language better reflects the
fact that they should agree but might be different.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: LC-1162: Wording of 1.4.2
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2131)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: Close, but introducing the term "independently" in the
phrase "which can be set independently of the system volume" is problematic
because most application software only provides--and can only provide--the
ability to control its audio volume RELATIVE to the system volume. Would it
work to say "independently of or relative to the system volume"?}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We are changing it to be  "can be set to be a different level from the
system volume level."

This allows it to be controlled with system volume but to have a
different value.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: LC-1169 : new wording more restrictive
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2132)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: Thank you, but the new wording limits that which can
be stopped to purely decorative content that is "moving", which earlier in
the paragraph was clearly distinguished from that which is "blinking,
scrolling, or auto-updating". I recommend the same categories be used for
each, by changing the last sentence to read "Moving, blinking, scrolling, or
auto-updating content that is pure decoration can be stopped by the user".
Alternatively, the entire paragraph could be changed to read "Moving,
blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating content can be paused by the user, or
stopped by the user if it is pure decoration, except where it is part of an
activity where timing or movement is essential."}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

Thank you. We have updated the SC and definition of pause as follows:

2.2.2 Pausing: Moving, blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating
information on a Web page that lasts for more than three seconds can
be paused  by the user unless the movement, blinking, scrolling, or
auto-updating is part of an activity where the changes are  essential.
Moving or blinking content that is pure decoration can be stopped or
hidden by the user.

paused: stopped by user request and not resumed until requested by user

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Wording of SC 3.3.6
Source: http://http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2133)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: The working group's new wording is better than
nothing, but I still feel it is not as broad as what we would ideally like
to see in Triple-A. Another approach would be, rather than start with a
narrow scope, start broadly and narrow the scope with exceptions such as
those you cited.

Proposed Change:

3.3.6: For all user actions that do not terminate a process, window, or
connection, at least one of the following is true:
  1. Reversible: Actions are reversible.
  2. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and if
desired cancelling the action.
}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We feel your proposal is too broad.

A mechanism that can reverse all such actions requires an enormous
amount of state and sophistication, and is an unreasonable requirement
for most web authors. For instance, providing a way to reverse each
edit action in a text field is not supported by typical user agents,
and would be very difficult for an author to implement.

Prompting the user to review and confirm each edit action makes the
editing process unusable.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: Markup language
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2134)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: This proposed language raises a few questions:

1. We do not currently define "markup language". Is it the intention that
this SC refer only to markup languages that are compatible with HTML and/or
XML, or is it supposed to include markup languages such as RTF that use a
completely different syntax? The difference will certainly affect the
real-world benefit of compliance, since tools will not be able to
automatically handle unusual or unfamiliar syntax.

2. Is it required that the markup language (or schema) be publicly
documented?

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

The term "markup language" is deliberately left open because many
technologies qualify. In particular, the Working Group determined that
restricting the term to XML or SGML would exclude some technologies
that are intended to be included. The accessibility issues emerge for
"forgiving" markup languages such as HTML, where browsers are
permissive of errors that cause assistive technology to be unable to
re-render the content. Technologies that are stricter in what they
permit fail equally for the disabled and non-disabled user.

It is not required that the markup language be publicly documented.
However, when markup languages are not publicly documented, checking
tools may be needed to allow authors to check that this success
criterion has been satisfied.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: LC-1174: before the content is encountered
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2135)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: OK, but I suggest you add a better explanation of what
is meant by "before the content is encountered"; it seems like at least one
example in the Understanding document contradicts this.}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have removed that language from the conformance criteria which have
been reworked.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: LC-1177: API
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2136)
Status: VERIFIED PARTIAL/OTHER
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: No change was made to this definition. Luckily, the
term API is only used in the Conformance section and Glossary, so the error
in the definition will not deleteriously affect the standard. However, I
still recommend it be corrected. APIs are used between layers which are not
applications, such as an application using API provided by the operating
system or graphics toolkit, or a script embedded in a Web page using API
provided by the user agent. I still recommend it be changed to read "between
applications or software components".}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

The definition of API is no longer needed, so it is no longer included
in the Glossary.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: LC-1178: defn of Assistive Technology
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2137)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: Thank you. However, I am left with two concerns.

First, in addition to this minor change to the definition of Assistive
Technology, a separate change was made (adding the word "usually"), and the
two interact to cause a problem. The new definition is "a user agent that
both: 1) provides., and 2) USUALLY relies on services." This is is
equivalent to "Assistive Technology is a user agent that provides.and that
usually relies on services." Adding "usually" changes the second bullet item
from prescriptive to just a note.

That alone could be addressed by changing to one of the following:
(a) change to "a user agent that provides services., and MAY RELY on
services.", or
(b) change to "a user agent that provides services. NOTE: ASSISTIVE
TECHNOLOGY usually relies on services."

Second, since Assistive Technology is currently defined as a strict subset
of User Agents, and the definition of User Agent exclude speech recognition
used for command-and-control (as described below in comment 43), then such
speech recognition utilities are not assistive technology for purposes of
this document. That does not seem correct.

Proposed Change that addresses both concerns:

"Assistive Technology: either:
1. a user agent that provides services., or
2. software that provides such services by relying on services. "
}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have updated the definition of assistive technology based on your
suggestions. Note that your second concern is handled in our response
to your other comment.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: LC-1180: sensory experience
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2138)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: Close, but once you have changed the term "sensory
elements" to "sensory experience", you should consider revising the closing
phrase, "associated with those elements". This is now the only place in the
document where the term "elements" is not used in the specific sense of HTML
elements and attributes. Change to " information and sensory experience to
be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, as well as code or
markup that define THEIR structure, presentation, and interactions"? Or just
leave as is.}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have revised this as follows:

content
 information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by
means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the
content's structure, presentation, and interactions

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: LC-1185: text and non-text content
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2139)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: In the new definitions of text and non-text content,
please be sure to clarify somewhere that number sequences, such as the
address of a fault represented as a string of hexadecimal digits, is text
even though many would not initially consider it to be "expressing something
in human language".}

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: In the Note for for the definition of non-text
content, please add a "an image representing text" as a third specific
example.}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have expanded the definition of "human language" to encompass the
examples you provided. We have also added the priviso about image
representations of text to the definition of non-text content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: LC-1191: definition of user agent
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0300.html
(Issue ID: 2140)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

{Greg Lowney 6/28/07: The response from the working group did not address my
concern. If Assistive Technology is defined as a subset of User Agents, and
User Agents exclude speech recognition used for command-and-control, then
you are saying Dragon NaturallySpeaking is not assistive technology for
purposes of this document. That does not seem correct. However, I do think
that it would be better addressed by changing the definition of assistive
technology, and leaving the definition of user agent as it stands.}

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have expanded the definition of assistive technology to include
software that are not user agents.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:32:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:09 UTC