- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:54:14 -0700
- To: "Juan Ulloa" <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Juan Ulloa, 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: confusion with non-live audio/video Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0247.html (Issue ID: 2082) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Overall confusion is that pre-recorded audio and pre-recorded video are not well represented in the guideline when it is *not* a part of a multimedia presentation. It often only refers to non-live audio/video in multimedia, but multimedia is defined as video or audio synchonized with some other method of providing information. Since Video includes Audio, video is not multimedia, it's just video. If the definition of Multimedia should include Video, this should be made clear. Whats not clear: The entire sentence. It mentions multimedia (which is defined as audio or video combined with another component) and it includes live audio or live video. But since the definition of multimedia doesn't include non-live audio or video, I get confused. This is specially true because the ways to meet this criteria seem like you should also use for non-live audio and non-live video. Proposed Change: I would expect to see something about pre-recorded audio/video under guideline 1.1.1. Since 1.1.1 differentiates live audio/video to only have a clear label/name, then I would think that non-live audio/video would be required to at least have a full text transcript, right? This is particularly true since audio/video are linear unless when they are a part of a multimedia presentation. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Prerecorded audio/video is multimedia and is specifically covered under the second exception. (though note that we are using "synchronized media" instead of multimedia now since it includes more than classic multimedia") Prerecorded (non-live) audio-only and prerecorded (non-live) video-only are not listed in an exception because they are included in the main 1.1.1 provision. However, since that was not clear to you - it may not be clear to others. So we have added the following note to the exception. "NOTE: Prerecorded audio-only and video-only files would be covered under [Success Criterion 1.1.1], which requires text alternatives that present equivalent information." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Why is Sign Language not required on non-multimedia Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0248.html (Issue ID: 2083) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- If 1.2.5 requires Multimedia to have Sign Language Interpretation, shouldn't there be a requirement for video as well? Actually, shouldn't this requirement be for Audio/Video in general? My assumption is that you only need to provide sign language interpretation for Audio/Video in a multimedia presentation, right? If that is the case, this should be moved out of guideline 1.2. But since Sign Language is not text, this wouldn't fin int guideline 1.1 and since this is not multimeda, it woudln't fit in 1.2. I would maybe place it under 1.3 because we are essentially asking the user to have information provided in diffrent ways. In this case, we are asking for voice audio to be provided in sign language. On a separate note, why would we require a website to provide sign language if they are already providing captioning? Wouldn't synchronized captioning along with synchronized descriptions for video and multimedia and transcripts for audio-only methods of distributing content be enough to make the content fully accessible? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Let us answer your questions in turn. - Video-only doesn't have sign language because there is no audio information that the deaf person is missing. - Captions are not sufficient for some people who live mostly in a signing environment and who do not read a lot of text because these individuals often cannot read text fast enough to keep up in a movie where the text by necessity is only displayed for a limited time. - Sign language is not required on audio-only because a text transcripts are required and people have as much time as they need to read them. We have added an advisory technique under Guideline 1.1 to provide sign language videos for audio-only files. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 don't seem to have a clear distinction Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0249.html (Issue ID: 2084) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I'm not clear in the distinction between the 2 guidelines. I don't understand what the following sentence means: "except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints." This seems to be the only distinction between the two requirements. Proposed Change: Add more supplementary information to make the distinction clear. Add references on 2.1.2 to 2.1.1 to state the difference. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- There are some activities where it is not possible to provide control from the keyboard without requiring a very large number (thousands) of keystrokes. The exception in 2.1.1 covers that. (for more information - see Understanding 2.1.1 in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 Document.). For 2.1.2 there is not exception. You cannot include those types of activities on a page that would meet 2.1.2. An example of something that would fall into the exception category would be water color painting or freehand sketching. An example of something would not meet the exception is handwriting recognition. Even though the act of handwriting depends on the user's movement and not just the endpoints, the function (text entry) does not, and can be supported also via the keyboard. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: 2.4.8 is not clearly differentiated from 2.4.4 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0250.html (Issue ID: 2085) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I'm not 100% clear about the difference between the two guidelines. Specially since one of the first sufficient techniques listed for 2.4.4 is to provide "link text that describes the purpose of a link" and guideline 2.4.8 requires that "the purpose of each link can be identified from the link text". I'm confused as to how the first sufficient technique of a level A requirement also seems to meet a level AAA requirement. Proposed Change: Clarify 2.4.8 so to make the distinction clear. If I understood the distinction better, I would provide some ideas. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- In order to clarify the difference between SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.8, we have changed SC 2.4.4 to read "2.4.4 Link Purpose (Context): The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text or the link text together with its programmatically determinable link context." We have also changed SC 2.4.8 (now 2.4.9) to read: "A mechanism is available to allow the purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Should 2.4.9 be a AA requirement? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0251.html (Issue ID: 2086) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Shouldn't 2.4.9 be an AA requirement? It seems to me that it should be an AA requirement because this would help users who aren't using assistive technology, for example, a visual user running a web browser that doesn't understand styles in a PDA or cell phone. Proposed Change: Make 2.4.9 be an AA requirement --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- In order to be a AA or A requirement, it must possible for all types of content to meet the requirement. In addition, all success criteria must be reliably testable. After a great deal of effort, the working group was unable to craft a criterion that met both requirements. By defining a section in a way that allowed reliable agreement between parties on what is and is not a section, some types of longer-form text content (e.g. novels) cannot pass. Because of this limitation, the Success Criterion must remain level AAA. Below is the text of the SC and the definition of section 2.4.10 Section Headings: Section headings are used to organize the content. Note: "Heading" is used in its general sense and includes titles and other ways to add a heading to different types of content. Note: This success criterion covers sections within writing, not user interface components. User Interface components are covered under Success Criterion 4.1.2. Section Headings: Where content is organized into sections, the sections are indicated with headings. Note: "Heading" is used in its general sense and includes titles and other ways to add a heading to different types of content. section: A self-contained portion of written content that deals with one or more related topics or thoughts. NOTE: A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 6: Add Exception to 3.1.1 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0252.html (Issue ID: 2087) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Shouldn\'t requirement 3.1.1 have an exception? Just curious. Because it seems to me, working for a college in the US that it would be assumed that the language would be English and a user with assistive technology would make that same assumption. Because of that, I would think that all web pages that are in English shouldn\'t need to state their natural language. But, I would think that if I have a website (lets say the French department) that is primarily in French, that it should state that French is its natural language because that page is an exception of our overal website. Proposed Change: Add exception to 3.1.1 so that you don\'t need to state the language if the website user could assume the language of the website based on geographical region/customer base. Or Maybe this could be split up into an A and AA requirement. A requirement would be for web pages in an organization that break the assumption of the natural language. The AA requirement would be for all web pages to include their default language. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- In your case of a university, which English would be used? A United Kingdom university might have an English 101 class for their British, Scottish, Canadian, Australian and United States students. Different languages versions would be used for each target audience, because proper/correct English depends on the linguistic rules of the default human languages of a particular culture. One cannot assume that because a person is in a specific geographic location that they use/speak one specific language. What of someone in Belgium, where the languages are Dutch, French and German? What would be the location default human language? It would depend on that author, and the specific audience that the author was trying to reach. The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that content developers provide information in the Web page that user agents need to present text and other linguistic content correctly. Both assistive technologies and conventional user agents can render text more accurately when the language of the Web page is identified. Screen readers can load the correct pronunciation rules. Visual browsers can display characters and scripts correctly. Media players can show captions correctly. As a result, users with disabilities will be better able to understand the content. The default human language of the Web page is the default text-processing language as discussed in Internationalization Best Practices: Specifying Language in XHTML & HTML Content. When a Web page uses several languages, the default text-processing language is the language which is used most. (If several languages are used equally, the first language used should be chosen as the default human language.) ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: Multimedia and Video confusion Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0253.html (Issue ID: 2088) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Is video w/ Audio multimedia? If not, what is Video w/ Audio called? I would assume that Video that has audio is still Video. But this is unclear through the definitions provided on this document. Proposed Change: Can the Video definition mention that Video can often include audio? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have moved away from the term "multimedia" and are now using the term "synchronized media" for audio or video that is synchronized with anything else (e.g. video, audio, interaction etc). We are also using the term video-only when we mean video without audio (or interaction). Also using audio-only in the same way if we mean an audio file. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 8: Does video with synchronized captions fit into 1.2? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0254.html (Issue ID: 2089) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Would a Video file that was made accessible by adding synchronized captions (through something like SMIL) be considered multimedia? Judging by the definition of multimedia, I would think that is the case. Proposed Change: Add an exception in either the definition of Multimedia *or* in all the 1.2 requirements stating that video with synchronized audio for the purposes of making its audio accessible does not make the video a "multimedia" presentation. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We think we understand your comment. - if the file is video only - then you would not need to add captions because there is no audio to caption. - if the file was "video with audio" then it would be multimedia - if the file was "video-only" and you added audio descriptions then you do not need to caption the descriptions (because they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually.) However we don't currently say that anywhere. So we assume that is the problem you are point out? To fix this - a note has been added to the definition of 'CAPTIONS' as follows "NOTE: Audio descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned since they are descriptions of information that is already presented visually. "
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:54:27 UTC