- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:57:53 -0700
- To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Lisa Seeman, 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: Support for Learning Disabilities Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0094.html (Issue ID: 2004) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I agree with Jonathan, in that the current draft does not have the wording that I was hoping. Specifically we want people to look at other specifications until WCAG adequately supports people with Learning Disabilities. That is why it was important that the words "There is a need for more research and development in this important area." are removed, as this implies that WCAG 2.0 has done its best under the currently available knowledge. People will assume from the current wording, that there are no better options to include people with learning disabilities. Even worse - they may think that other standards are non credible. It is important to note that some sites WANT to include people with learning disabilities. The very least we should not make it less likely for them to succeed. I will try and review the draft over the weekend. All the best Lisa Lisa expanded on this with the following: >From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html Issue 1: from the introduction (about learning disabilities) Note this comment comes from many people who voiced the formal objection to the previous version quote: "Although some of the accessibility issues of people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities are addressed by WCAG 2.0, either directly or through assistive technologies, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines do not address many areas of need for people with these disabilities. There is a need for more research and development in this important area." recommendation: We must remove the sentence "There is a need for more research and development in this important area" . It will result in less accessible content for many people. To understand why I feel that is crucial please review my assumptions Assumption 1: There are organisations that have guidelines that offer more support for people with learning disabilities then WCAG 2.0 Assumption 2: There are web authors that wish to make content, or at least part of the content (such as emergency information) accessible to as many people as they possibly can. There are sites that want to include people with leaning and cognitive disabilities. Assumption 3: Some of the criteria that have been proven to help accessibility for people with learning disabilities and are recommended in other specifications have been excluded from WCAG because of issues such as adoptability, undue burden , widely applicable etc. These criteria are not all excluded because of a lack of research. These criteria are often reliable. If a web author who very much wants to accommodate people with severe learning disabilities, reads the sentences "the WCAG 2.guidelines do not address many areas of need for people with these disabilities." They will know there is more to do. However, if they then read" There is a need for more research and development in this important area." They will assume that WCAG is the best option right now for including people with learning disabilities. The implication is that the only reason that WCAG does not address many areas of need for people with these disabilities is because the research is inadequate. Other guidelines will seem less credible. The result of this sentence is that the author who would like to accommodate people with cognitive disabilities will do a worse job. (All accessibility will benefit form more research, placing the sentence hear, misrepresents the situation.) Alternate answer from David (but now David agree's to remove sentence) The Working Group hoped that the inclusion of the sentence "There is a need for more research and development in this important area." would encourage support in the research community for additional work in these areas. The working group believes most cognitive professionals would say there is need for more research and that this is an emerging field. We don't know of other standards in web design that have significanly different suggestions for cognitive, language and learning than what we have included in the WCAG 2.0 (when we take into consideration the advisory techniques). The testability requirement has made it difficult to make many of the cognitive language and learning techniques sufficient. But if we remove testability, then the *entire* WCAG would be "advisory" and no one would know whether they actually met the guideline or not. This would not be consistent with other standards or with other W3C recommendations. In order to improve the balance between accommodation of other disabilities and cognitive disabilities in the WCAG we are proposing to tag each technique (sufficient and advisory) that can help people with cognitive disabilities and then create a view of those tagged techniques to form supplementary document called: "WCAG 2.0 suggested techniques that make web sites more accessible for people with cognitive disabilities" In the preface we would say: "Techniques that help people with cognitive, language and learning disabilities are often, by their very nature, untestable. That does not mean that they are not useful or important to some users. We have included here a list of techniques that have been identified to help some people with cognitive language and learning disabilities..." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The Working Group hoped that the inclusion of the sentence "There is a need for more research and development in this important area." would encourage support in the research community for additional work in these areas. At the request of several reviewers, we have removed it. We added the sentence based on comments submitted: Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community. In Context it reads: All of these layers of guidance (guidelines, success criteria, and sufficient and advisory techniques) work together to provide guidance on how to make content more accessible. Authors are encouraged to view and apply all layers that they are able to, including the advisory techniques, in order to best address the needs of the widest possible range of users. Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community. Metadata may assist users in finding content most suitable for their needs. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Wording of SC 1.4.3 and SC 1.4.5 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2076) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 2: from 1.4.3 and 1.4.5 (about low contrast images) quote " <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#textdef> Text (and images of text) have a <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#contrast-ratiodef> contrast ratio of ...." I recommend changing the text to " <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#textdef> Text (and images of text) are available with a <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#contrast-ratiodef> contrast ratio of ...." In other words the images may be Swapped for high contrast versions. This enables the content provider to provide accessibility when required and maintain the look and feel of their graphics. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We don't need to change the wording to accommodate the option you suggest. The guidelines already allow pages to conform as long as any parts that don't, have an equivalent that does. Hence - a technique whereby content that did not have enough contrast had an alternative that could be called up from the page that would meet the contrast - would conform. If you would like to write up such a technique we would be happy to include it as a sufficient technique. in the meantime, we have put in a placeholder sufficient technique with the following title to make it clear that this is a possibility. "Providing a mechanism on the page for replacing any low contrast text or images text with text or images of text that meet the specified contrast ratio." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: SC 2.2.1 - Adjust and Extend only when no other option Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2077) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 3: from 2.2.1 (about timed text) Quote " * Adjust: the user is allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or * Extend: the user is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (for example, "hit any key"), and the user is allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or " I am uncomfortable with these options. At least these options could be limited to " when there is no other option" I am often having page information reset for me - at huge loss of data and time. sometimes the problem is I have got distracted or am doing something else for a short time and boom - hours of work gone. How can you be sure that the user knows to hit the key? This kind of thing makes me which for testing centric guidelines - oh well --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have added the following to Understanding SC 2.2.1, to encourage authors to adopt the least intrusive approach: These options are listed in the order that will be most helpful for the user. Disabling time limits is better than customizing the length of time limits, which is better than requesting more time before a time limit occurs. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Raise priority level of SC 3.3.3 and 3.3.6 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2078) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 4: From 3.3.3 and 3.3.6 - about error preventions quote " 3.3.3 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For forms that cause <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#legalcommitmentsdef> legal commitments or financial transactions to occur, 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All): For forms that require the user to submit information" I recommend moving 3.3.3 to conformance level 1 and 3.3.6 to conformance level two - making both of them one conformance level higher then they are now My reason is as follows: If a person claims accessibility at any level that at least you should no that legal commitments will not be incurred without the disabled user being aware of it. The fear and experiences of bad transactions and getting your data messed up by hard to use forms is a common experience and a barrier to the world and convenience of internet use for many disabled uses. Many people with disabilities are afraid of using internet services because of this,. Yet often people with disabilities need the online alternative the most. They need to be able to use them without fear. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- This is a new provision in WCAG 2.0 and the working group is not sure that it can be applied in all situations. The group is not comfortable shifting these two provisions [3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data)] and [3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)] up a level to A and AA. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Meaning of "Non support" requirement Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2079) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 5: From the end sections Quote" Non support: The content continues to meet the conformance requirements when the (non accessibility-supported) technology is turned on, turned off, or is not supported by a user agent." I found this very unclear - what does this mean? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have reworded the conformance clause to make it clearer: It now reads: 5.) Non-Interference: If Web technologies that are not accessibility supported are used on a page, or accessibility-supported technologies are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page. Specifically, the Web page as a whole continues to meet the conformance requirements under all of the following conditions: 1. when any (non accessibility-supported) technology is turned on in a user agent, and 2. when it is turned off in a user agent, and 3. when it is not supported by a user agent Note: The following success criteria all apply to full pages including technologies that are not accessibility supported or relied upon to meet the other success criterion because they deal with things that could interfere with overall use of the page: 1.4.2 - Audio Control, 2.1.2 - No Keyboard Trap, 2.3.1 - Three Flashes or Below Threshold, and 2.2.2 - Pausing. This is explained more fully in Understanding Conformance Requirement 5: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-247-head ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 6: Optional components of conformance claim Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2080) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 5: from the conformance claim sections at the end quote " Optional components of a conformance claim * Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility. " Can we add hear "Information about the cognitive abilities are required to use the page such as visual memory, auditory memory, language abilities, reading level , etc" Can we add "what advisory techniques were used " ? Can we add "Information about any additional protocols used to aid access for people with cognitive and learning disabilities " --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The language, "Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility" includes all of the items you mention with the exception of specifying the requirements needed from certain disabilities. There is nothing to prevent specifying this information, but we decided to not encourage specifying particular disability information in the WCAG itself. We have added notes to the "Understanding" document to make it clear that "what advisory techniques were used" and "Information about any additional protocols used to aid access for people with cognitive and learning disabilities" is included in "Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility." The language in the Understanding Conformance Claims is: Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria One of the optional components of a conformance claim is "Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility." This can include additional success criteria that have been met, advisory techniques that were implemented, information about any additional protocols used to aid access for people with particular disabilities or needs, etc. Any information that would be useful to people in understanding the accessibility of the pages may be included. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-248-head ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: Understanding section references - missing issue in Principle 3 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0245.html (Issue ID: 2081) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Issue 6 : missing section in guideline 3 Take the following inaccessible sentence "please see section 2.3 56 to test conformance against technique 45.3.m" ? * Is the term "2.3.56" considered jargon or acronyms that it needs an explanation? So far I can not find a success criteria that prohibit this sentence. * Further, if it is considered jargon and a glossary of jargon is provided - would that conform? * Imagine someone without a visual or auditory short term memory (you can simulate that by imaging the numbers were symbols that all look a bit alike) - Will a glossary help? (answered: it will not ) Useful labels needed to be used in place of the 3,2,4.28d.m stuff --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We agree that this reference is not jargon and is not covered by SC 3.1.3 (Unusual words). NOTE: If the document being referred to was conformant then you would have the descriptive labels that you want in that sentence. If the document being referred to was not conformant - then it may not have descriptive labels and you would have the problem you cite. We have also added two advisory techniques to Guideline 3.1 to make it easier for people to look up reference when they encounter them. "Making any reference to a location in a Web page into a link to that location." "Making references to a heading or title include the full text of the title."
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:58:09 UTC