- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:34 -0700
- 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