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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:33:59 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032133h11180d1ofdb6026be3f3c8f8@mail.gmail.com>
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

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