- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:33:59 -0700
- To: "Swan, Henny" <henny.swan@rnib.org.uk>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Henny Swan, 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: May not be accessible to every person with a disability Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0153.html (Issue ID: 2351) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 3: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E1065D702C@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk (Issue ID: LC-1243) Comment: The text "Note that even conformance to all three levels will not make Web content accessible to all people." is a bit misleading as people may think "why bother". Proposed Change: Provide explanation. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The statements you refer to are meant to reflect the reality that not all Web content can be made accessible to all people. One of the lessons learned with WCAG 1.0 was that, for some individuals, even content that meets WCAG 1.0 AAA did not overcome the accessibility barriers faced by those with certain combinations of disabilities or with certain types of severe disabilities. We have revised this sentence to read, "However, even content that conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to every person with a disability or combination of disabilities especially certain types of severe disabilities." HS response: I understand this but do have concerns that this could be open for misinterpretation as well as used against WCAG. I think it should stay in but am wondering if it may need further clarification along the lines of the response from the WG given above. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have rewritten the introduction and tried to make this point clearer in the process. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Testability Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0153.html (Issue ID: 2352) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Comment 15: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E1065D702C@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk (Issue ID: LC-1255) Comment: WCAG1 14.1 is not represented in this guideline or any other. This is quite a major omission and one that is important for not only users with cognitive and reading problems but also browsing in a second language; a strange omission given W3C's Internationalisation WG. Proposed Change: Add in ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The working group was unable to come up with a testable equivalent of WCAG1 14.1. However, we have added an advisory technique to guideline 3.1 and SC 3.1.5 that reads, "Using the clearest and simplest language appropriate for the content." We have added language to the Introduction to highlight the fact that WCAG 2 only addresses some of the needs of people with cognitive, learning, and language disabilities, and calls out the need for more research in this area. WAI is exploring ways in which to support and encourage work in this important area. HS response: Still unsure about this. I understand that 2.0 is aiming to be testable but if a something can not be tested should it really be omitted? ********************************************************************** Comment 18: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/7DCC97516CAEE343BD17A00F900754E1065D702C@jstmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk (Issue ID: LC-1258) Comment: WCAG1, checkpoint is not reflected in WCAG 2. The WCAG 2 checklist states that this is because it is reflected in the techniques rather than the Success Criteria which are normative. Can be argued that 14.2 is as important to people with cognitive problems as 1.1 and alt text are to VI users. In WCAG one the former was a P3 that later a P1. It may be that because it is not testable that 14.2 hasn't carried over into WCAG 2 but it shouldn't be excluded because it is not testable as it is still a fundamental guideline for this user group. In the Introduction it states that WCAG2 is for people with cognitive and learning problems so therefore this checkpoint should be in WCAG 2. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The working group was unable to come up with a testable version of WCAG1 14.2, so that authors could determine when the supplements were needed and how to ensure that the supplements actually addressed the needs of people with cognitive disabilities. Graphic or auditory supplements are listed as sufficient techniques for SC 3.1.5 We have added language to the Introduction, the Conformance section, and the Quick Reference to highlight the fact that WCAG 2 only addresses some of the needs of people with cognitive, learning, and language disabilities, and to call out the need for more research in this area. WAI is exploring ways in which to support and encourage work in this important area. We have added some best practices for cognitive, learning, and language disabilities as advisory techniques, and we have proposed 3 new success criteria in this area. HS response: Still unsure about this. I understand that 2.0 is aiming to be testable but if a something can not be tested should it really be omitted? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We also struggled under the testability constraint, but in the end, the W3C cannot ask authors to conform to something (or expect them to include the standard in purchases or work orders) if the authors cannot tell when they have met the criteria. It is important to remember two things: 1) That these are base standards for accessibility. The starting point that authors should do. 2) WCAG includes both requirements (success criteria) and recommendations (guidelines and advisory techniques). - Only the requirements (success criteria) and the sufficient techniques need to be testable (and this can be machine testable OR human testable OR a combination of both). - The guidelines themselves as well as the advisory techniques do not need to be testable and they contain much guidance and information on how to make a page accessible that goes beyond what can be tested. Thus, WCAG provides a roadmap both for those who only want to (or only will) do what is required as well as for those that are interested in knowing what to do, without needing to be required to do it. The former have a list of "to do's" that they can be given and held accountable for. The latter have a rich listing of advice on things to consider that would make things more accessible. We hope to find people interested in putting together an application note that is specifically targeted at Cognitive, Language and Learning disabilities and that organizes all the information in this area in a manner that does not worry about testability, and presents all ideas in a simple straightforward manner. If you are interested in helping on this, please let us know.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:34:11 UTC