- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:02:19 -0700
- 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 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: 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 guidelines. 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