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 21:42:08 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032142y707dc3dcxee9c76f9bd4765b8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew LaHart" <andrew.lahart@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org, "Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>

Dear IBM,

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: hit any key
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2226)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment: The text "(for example, "hit any key")", is a poor example
because it is rarely possible for ANY to be used.  Also, users have
been known to be confused by this prompt.

Suggested change:  Change (for example, "hit any key") to (for
example, "press the space bar").

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

We have changed the example as you suggested.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Essential exception wording
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2227)
Status: VERIFIED ACCEPTED
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

2) Location: 2.2.1 Timing, Essential Exception bullet

Comment:  "Time limits that can not be extended further without
invalidating the activity" seems to be a clarification of what
"essential" means rather than an additional idea. Suggest simplifying.

Suggested change: Change "the time limit is part of an activity where
timing is essential and time limits can not be extended further
without invalidating the activity" to "the time limit can not be
extended further without invalidating the activity."

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

We have changed the Success Criterion as you suggested.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: form focus order example
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2228)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

3) Location: 2.4.3 Focus Order

Comment: Please add an example in the How to section of this guideline
to show an example of a form (like composing an email message) in a
Web page with left side and top navigation bars. If the form controls
all have tabindex values greater than zero and the navbars have no
tabindex values, will this page meet the success criteria?

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

Positioning different sections of the content via CSS would satisfy SC
2.4.3, since focus would follow logical order within each section of
the page, and there is no logical requirement that the sections be in
any relative order. We have added such an example to Understanding SC
2.4.3.

We have also changed the SC so that there is a success criterion at
Level A that requires the focus order to follow information and
relationships conveyed through presentation.  While there are
sometimes several orders that would be consistent with the
presentation, we do not feel that your proposed example would meet
this new success criterion.

(There is also another SC at level AAA:   2.4.11  If a Web page can be
navigated sequentially and the focus order affects operability,
focusable components receive focus in an order that is consistent with
the visual layout order of the web page. )

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: visible content or also alternate content?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2229)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

4) Location: 2.4.5 Multiple Ways

Comment: Please clarify what is meant by the term "content". Does
content only include visible content or does it also include
alternative content such as alt text, title text, etc. Please clarify.

Suggested change: Make "content" a link to the glossary term "content".

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

The "content" here referred to is a Web page, rather than information
within a Web page, so there would not be a requirement, for instance,
to be able to find a specific piece of conditional content. We have
clarified this by changing SC 2.4.5 to say:

"More than one way is available to locate a Web page within a set of
Web pages where the Web Page is not the result of, or a step in, a
process."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Section headings and titles
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2230)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

5) Location: 2.4.9 Section Headings

Comment:  Please change this guideline from "Section Headings" to
"Section Headings and Titles". This is because the heading element is
not the only sufficient technique. Developers can also use the title
attribute of a frame and ARIA live region properties as well to meet
this guideline.

Suggested change: Change "Section Headings" to "Section Headings and
Titles" or something similar.

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

We have added a note to 2.4.10 that reads:

NOTE: "Heading" is used in its general sense and includes titles and
other ways to add a heading to different types of content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: is 2.4.9 testable?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2231)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

6) Location: 2.4.9 Level Headings

Comment: This may not be testable. If the content doesn't include any
headings, then what constitutes a section? The text would be all
paragraphs, so would this require putting a heading on every
paragraph?

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

We have modified the success criterion and added a definition of
section. A section might only contain one paragraph, but not every
paragraph is a section.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: new terms - sufficient technique
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2232)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

7) Location:  Important New Terms Used in WCAG 2.0, under sufficient
techniques section

Comment: These two sentences are hard to understand:
"Note that it is not necessary to meet a success criterion using one
of the sufficient techniques that have been documented by the WCAG
working group. There may be other techniques which are not documented
by the working group that would also meet the success criterion."

Suggested Change: Change the first sentence to "It may be possible to
meet a success criterion without  using any of the techniques listed."
 The positive version of the sentence is easier to understand.

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

We have rewritten this section and changed the statement to a positive one.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: new terms - programmatically determined
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2233)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

8) Location: Important New Terms Used in WCAG 2.0, under
Programmatically Determined  section:

Comment: The reference hyperlinks for user agents and assistive
technologies should go two sentences earlier, the first time they are
used.

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

Thank you. We have updated the draft as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: Guideline 3.3 wording
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2234)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

9) Location: 3.3 Help users avoid and correct mistakes

Comment: Minor sentence change

Suggested Change: Change "Help users avoid and correct mistakes" to
"Help users avoid mistakes and correct them"

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

The proposed wording can be interpreted to mean that the author should
correct the mistakes. Under the current wording the author only needed
to help the user correct mistakes.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: Delete "automatically"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2235)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

10) Location: 3.3.1 Error Identification

Comment: The word automatically is not needed in this sentence: "If an
input error is automatically detectedů"

Suggested change: Delete the word "automatically".

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

We have accepted your suggestion.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: order of preference of error prevention options
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2236)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

11) Location: 3.3.3 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data)

Comment: There should be a sentence indicating the preference order of
#1, #2, and #3. (1 is the best, 3 can be a waste of time)

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

Ideally, all three options would be provided (make actions reversible,
check for errors and prompt the user to correct them, and provide the
user an opportunity to review and confirm the data before submitting).
However, depending on the nature of the activity, all may not be
possible. We feel that indicating a preferred order would lead authors
to the conclusion that they should pick one option, rather than
striving for as many as are practical.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: H2 - additional code sample
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2237)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

12) Location: Technique H2: Combining adjacent image and text links
for the same resource

Comment: A new code sample would be helpful

Suggest change: Add the following code sample as a failure for this technique:

        Example: the image has a text alternative which is a duplicate
of the link text
        <a href="products.html">
          <img src="products.gif" alt="Products page"/>
          Products page
        </a>

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

We have added this additional example.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13: H21 - test procedure
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2238)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

13) Location: Technique: H21: Not specifying background color, not
specifying text color, and not using CSS that changes those defaults

Comment: #3 and #4 in the test procedure uses the term "image",
although it is not clear what kind of image the document is referring
to. Also, the last part of the technique is about "not using CSS that
changes those defaults", but there are no test procedures to verify
that CSS is no being used.

Suggested Change: Change "image" in #3 and #4 to "image used as a
background". Also, add a test procedure to show how users can test
that CSS is not being used.

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

We have updated the test section of this technique as proposed. We
have also made this a general technique (G148) to clarify that any use
of a technology or feature where the default colors can be overridden
would be included.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: H39 - test procedure confusing
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2239)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

14) Location: Technique H39: Using caption elements to associate data
table captions with data tables

Comment: The test procedure and expected results are confusing.

Suggested change: Rewrite the test procedures as suggested below:
Procedure
        1. For each table, determine whether the content has a
relationship with other content in both its column and its row.
        If "no," the table is a layout table, if "yes." the table is a
data table.
        2. If the table is a layout table, check that the table does
not include a caption element
        3. If the table is a data table and it includes a caption
element, check that the caption identifies the table
        4. If both a summary attribute and a caption element are
present for this data table, check that the summary does not duplicate
the caption
Expected Results
        For layout tables, #2 is true.
        For data tables, #3 and #4 are true

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

Thank you for providing a clearer description of the procedure. We
have changed the technique as you suggested.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15: H52 - remove technique
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2240)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

15) Location: H52: Using the body of the applet element

Comment: This technique is already covered under technique "H35:
Providing text alternatives on applet elements".

Suggested change: Remove this technique

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

Thank you for catching this. We have removed H52.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16: H64 - iframe element?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2241)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

16) Location: Technique H64: Using the title attribute of the frame element

Comment: Please add information and testing procedures for the iframe element.

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

Thank you. We have included information about iframe in technique H64.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17: H73 - test for layout tables, too
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0368.html
(Issue ID: 2242)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

17) Location: Technique H73: Using the summary attribute of the table
element to give an overview of data tables

Comment: The test procedure should also test for layout tables. (This
situation is similar to the suggested test procedure for technique H39
above)

Suggested Change:
Procedure
        1. For each table, determine whether the content has a
relationship with other content in both its column and its row:
        If "no," the table is a layout table, if "yes." the table is a
data table.
        2. If the table is a layout table, check that the summary
attribute is not present or summary attribute is null
        3. If the table is a data table and a summary is present,
check that the summary attribute describes the table's organization or
explains how to use the table
        4. If both a summary attribute and a caption element are
present for this data table, check that the summary does not duplicate
the caption
Suggested Expected Results
        For layout tables, #2 is true.
        For data tables, #3 and #4 are true

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

Thank you, we have made the changes that you proposed.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:42:28 UTC

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