- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:58:30 -0700
- To: Luc-Rock <Paquin.Luc-Rock@ic.gc.ca>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Luc-Rock, 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: Removal of Testability Requirement for certain elements Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0157.html (Issue ID: 2353) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- After reading the "Testability Costs Too Much" article (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/testability), I have come to the conclusion that testability should not be a requirement for all guidelines. Proposed Change: Allow certain guidelines to be without a "testability" requirement, as these "soft" guidelines are often very useful to Web designers and encourage people to create more user-friendly pages, even if the guidelines are somewhat subjective. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you for your comment. We also struggled under the testability constraint, but in the end, the W3C cannot ask authors to conform to something (or expect them to include the standard in purchases or work orders) if the authors cannot tell when they have met the criteria. It is important to remember two things: 1) That these are base standards for accessibility. The starting point that authors should do. 2) WCAG includes both requirements (success criteria) and recommendations (guidelines and advisory techniques). - Only the requirements (success criteria) and the sufficient techniques need to be testable (and this can be machine testable OR human testable OR a combination of both). - The guidelines themselves as well as the advisory techniques do not need to be testable and they contain much guidance and information on how to make a page accessible that goes beyond what can be tested. Thus, WCAG provides a roadmap both for those who only want to (or only will) do what is required as well as for those that are interested in knowing what to do, without needing to be required to do it. The former have a list of "to do's" that they can be given and held accountable for. The latter have a rich listing of advice on things to consider that would make things more accessible. We hope to find people interested in putting together an application note that is specifically targeted at Cognitive, Language and Learning disabilities and that organizes all the information in this area in a manner that does not worry about testability, and presents all ideas in a simple straightforward manner. If you are interested in helping on this, please let us know.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:58:48 UTC