W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2007

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:02:19 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032202l5feca6c6i4c0c17637730e018@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MJ Ray" <mjr@phonecoop.coop>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear MJ Ray,

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

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.


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: Include the W3C Technologies guideline 11 from WCAG 1.0.
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0067.html
(Issue ID: 1984)
Original Comment:

Document: W2
Item Number: Components of Web Accessibility
Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: Not clear whether web pages should use W3C technologies
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

I can't tell whether one MUST or even SHOULD serve something like
xhtml over HTTP to meet these guidelines.  One thing WCAG 1.0 got very
right was suggesting particular W3C technologies which are sympathetic
to broad accessibility.

In general, this draft of WCAG 2.0 seems very difficult for both
developers and managers to use.

Proposed Change:
Include the W3C Technologies guideline 11 from WCAG 1.0.

Response from Working Group:

Thank you for your comment. WCAG 2.0 applies to all Web content. An
easier way to review techniques can be found at the WCAG 2.0 quick
reference at http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/. One of the
improvements WCAG 2 has made is to recognize that accessible Web
content can be based on non-W3C technologies. Thus guideline 11 of
WCAG 1.0 no longer applies in WCAG 2.0.

Comment 2: Should prohibit "relies upon scripting"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0066.html
(Issue ID: 1985)
Original Comment:

Document: W2
Item Number: Accessibility Support of Web Technologies
Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: Should prohibit "relies upon scripting"
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Javascript will never be supported by all browsers all the time
because it can make page elements, focus, browser local and more move
around unpredictably; and it requires more processor power, which
variously shortens battery life and increases electricity use,
indirectly contributing to environmental damage.

Similar problems afflict all other scripting.

Proposed Change:
Prohibit "relies on Javascript" and any similar processing-required
content from all WCAG conformance claims, while allowing it as "used
but not relied upon".

Response from Working Group:

We have defined how to evaluate whether a technology is accessibility
supported.  Because the evaluation of accessibility supported depends
upon the users and what user agents and assistive technology they use,
the result of the evaluation can be different for different
environments and at different times. So it is inappropriate to
prohibit any particular technology as part of the normative

JavaScript or some features of JavaScript may not be accessibility
supported in certain circumstances.  In those circumstances, it should
not be relied upon. If it is relied upon, the rest of the success
criteria must still be satisfied.

The particular issues you mention around movement of page elements,
focus, etc. are indeed problems with some scripts.  However, it is
possible to build Javascript-based pages that do not have these
problems.  Part of the goal of the working group is to provide
guidance to authors on how to do so.  We would welcome your thoughts
on additional techniques we might add to help prevent those problems.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC