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

Dear Johannes Koch,

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: Is not "naming" a form control a failure?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0006.html
(Issue ID: 1958)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

this is a response to
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0063.html>.

About your response to my comment 1:

> SC 4.1.2 and SC 1.1.1 require that form controls have names. The name
> may be provided in a way that is not a (visible) label.

So I assume that not "naming" a form control is a failure, right? Should
this be made explicit by creating a common failure?


I'm OK with your responses to my comments 2 and 3 :-)

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

We have added these examples to F68.

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:49:38 UTC