- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:57:19 -0700
- To: "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Liddy Nevile, 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: metadata and WCAG 2.0 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0137.html (Issue ID: 1957) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- This is a response to the comments made about my issue with WCAG 2.0 wrt metadata. Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060614003228.646BD33205@kearny.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-799) Unfortunately, I did not provide a detailed issue report and I suspect my comments have been misunderstood by the WG. A new ISO standard for accessibility metadata, known as the AccessforAll metadata and also worked on by IMS GLC, the European community, the Dublin Core community, and others, makes it possible to significantly improve the accessibility of the Web by adding appropriate, standardised metadata to resources. This metadata is carefully designed to completely avoid any ideas of 'conformance' and simply advise on the characteristics of the resource that may be of relevance to the INDIVIDUAL user. This means that an individual can determine if the resource is suitable for them, regardless of its conformance to any standards. It also makes it possible for systems that take account of individual user's needs and preferences and makes it possible for such systems to discover versions of resources that will suit the individual user. The metadata being proposed is necessary for individual selection of appropriate resources, does not have any impact on conformance and therefore is not likely to cause many of the problems that conformance metadata might, and has been designed to work as part of the general accessibility approach taken by WCAG, in full recognition of WCAG. It should be noted that there is nothing technology-specific about the metadata schemas being recommended and such metadata is fully extensible and works for both generic and proprietary technologies. It is fairly clear that if metadata of the type suggested is included in the WCAG requirements, many more people with accessibility needs and preferences will be able to use many more resources of use to them, making the Web in general, far more accessible. I urge the WG to consider this work in more detail and at least to discuss it with one of the editors of the AccessforAll metadata standards. I personally consider that to not include metadata of this type in WCAG would be a retrograde step and continue the problem with WCAG that the new metadata approach was designed to overcome: while conformance with WCAG is a good practice and helps deal with the bulk of problems for many people, WCAG does not and cannot cater for the specific needs and preferences of an individual user who needs to know if the resource has what they need and prefer, whatever else it does or does not have for other people. I note that although the new metadata approach was developed for education, it is generally applicable, and is so considered by the Dublin Core metadata community. For further details, please see: http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility (a number of documents available) http://jtc1sc36.org/doc/36N1141.pdf (a nearly final version of the standard to be released very soon by ISO) http://dublincore.org/groups/access (a generalised approach to AccessforAll metadata) --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The working group recognizes that proposed metadata structure can potentially be beneficial to people with disabilities, technology developers, and content authors. We have added metadata into WCAG in a couple of ways, but we are not adding a success criteria requiring metadata. It turns out that there two flaws in the logic that counterindicate this. 1) If content meets all the other SC already (including using metadata to meet the other SC) then adding a new SC requiring additional (not required for conformance) alternatives be linked by metadata is requiring metadata links to do things that aren't required. 2) If content met the other SC but the author wanted to provide a special alternate version (which did NOT meet WCAG but did provide a particularly accessible version for a particular disability) and the author didn't use metadata to link to it (the author provided links on the page instead) then the page would fail even though the new content wasn't needed to meet WCAG and even though there was a self explanatory link right there that would take a user to the alternate version. Our conclusion was that Metadata was a very powerful technique for doing certain things but that, like other technologies, we didn't want to specify it too tightly in the SC. Instead we would like to focus on it in the techniques to meet other success criteria. What we have done therefore is the following. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixC.html ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: low-literacy Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0092.html (Issue ID: 2002) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I agree that we have a problem that we have not yet managed to address. I am currently in Cambodia working with the millions here, and representative of them in many countries, who are not only low- literacy but second language people whose own cultural communities will not for many years produce web content for them and so they are reliant on, for example, English content. We are part of the One Laptop Per Child Project and that project alone will give millions of children and their families connectivity within a very few months but sadly, they will not be able to access content that is suitable for them because it will not be identified as low-literacy (a lack of metadata) and not designed to be transformed for low-literacy. I am really shocked by the lack of accessibility for these communities and consider it quite a high priority, especially as in many cases it also means critical health, safety, ..... Liddy On 13/06/2007, at 7:37 AM, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: > > Re: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07 > > Why do we need to include people with learning disabilities or low > literacy in creating web standards? > One in five people in the UK is functionally illiterate. > > to each one of you that remains concerned, > > Users need to be involved in the development of standards, > including but not limited to WAI standards. This is the structural > fault within W3C process that needs to be resolved. > > It is not sufficient to rely on the well intentioned and excellent > intellectual prowess of developers. They create to suit their own > and their corporate needs. > > User groups need to include people with low literacy and learning > disabilities. > Corporations and developers need to test their products with users, > but amazingly in an email today, a director of one of the largest > web corporations advised me they do not include users in their > development process. > > The evidence is that after more than a decade there are no easy to > use tools for independently publishing HTML, SVG or other W3C > technologies. > > I have already written to Ian, Tim, Chris and others to state this > case. > > regarding WCAG2 in particular: > > whilst it is true that I attended the conference calls, I did not > agree the outcomes. > we were limited to discussing a paragraph that has subsequently > been significantly diluted in intent**. > > it can be found as the last paragraph in the introduction here: > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro > > regards > > Jonathan Chetwynd > Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet > > 29 Crimsworth Road > SW8 4RJ > > 020 7978 1764 > > http://www.eas-i.co.uk > > **or as Joe wrote > "...the ostensibly open process of the W3C actually isn't open: > It's dominated by multinationals; the opinions of everyone other > than invited experts can be and are ignored; the Working Group can > claim that "consensus" has been reached even in the face of > unresolved internal disagreement; invited-expert status has been > refused or revoked; the process is itself inaccessible to people > with disabilities, like deaf people; WCAG Working Group chairs have > acted like bullies. > > The "open" W3C process simply didn't work. We tried something > else." > > http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/intro.html > > > --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We agree that issues with low literacy and second languages are a barrier to many people, but unless they are a due to cognitive, learning, or language disabilities, they are outside the scope of WCAG 2.0. We hope that improved support for people with these disabilities will also benefit the wider audience, including those with low literacy.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:57:31 UTC