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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007 (1 of 4)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:04:43 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032204k2b056f56kb089a0d9adf4cd8b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Patrick Lauke,

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: Guidelines, not requirements?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0324.html
(Issue ID: 2179)
Original Comment:
----------------------------

3rd paragraph: \"WCAG 2.0 provides requirements for making Web content
more accessible...\"

Proposed Change:
WCAG 2.0 provides *guidelines* for making Web content more accessible...

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have completely rewritten the Introduction and removed "requirements".

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: only 9 pages long
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0325.html
(Issue ID: 2180)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

1st bullet point: "The actual guidelines ... are only 9 pages long"

Proposed Change:
This sounds more like the document is trying to be apologetic and
counter previous criticism. This belongs in the "changes from previous
WD" document, not in the guidelines themselves.

Also, "9 pages long" is a vague term...depends on my print settings
whether it's 9 pages or not. I'd suggest just dropping that sentence
altogether.

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have removed this from the guidelines.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Intro to the four principles
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0327.html
(Issue ID: 2182)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

1st para: "...around the following four principles. These four principles ..."

Awkward wording.

Proposed Change:
"...around the following four principles, which..."

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We don't have this language in the guidelines anymore - but have made
the change in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document where it is now.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Stray comma and "standard"?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0329.html
(Issue ID: 2184)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

1st para of "Success Criteria"

"Under each guideline, there are...to conform to this standard".

Unnecessary comma. Also, is it a standard? No, they\'re guidelines, or
in W3C parlance "recommendations", I'd say

Proposed Change:
"Under each guideline there are ... to conform to this recommendation"

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have changed the sentence to "...to conform to WCAG 2.0"

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Stray comma
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0324.html
(Issue ID: 2186)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

last bullet of "Success Criteria"

",including benefits, and examples"

Proposed Change:
",including benefits and examples"

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

Thank you. This section has been edited and this phrase is no longer there.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: AT heavy "levels of conformance" bullet points
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0332.html
(Issue ID: 2187)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Three levels of conformance", in the second bulleted list, the
language seems heavily skewed towards assistive technology, e.g.
"...achieve accessibility by supporting assistive technology..."

Mention of AT is important, but this section should be reworded in a
more general way to mention user agents.

Proposed Change:
the above example could conceivably read "...achieve accessibility by
supporting a wide range of user agents, including assistive
technology..."

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have rewritten the introduction and fixed this issue.  The
description no longer emphasizes AT in this manner.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: Awkward wording on confomance level
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0333.html
(Issue ID: 2188)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The closing para for the "Three conformance levels" sound a bit
awkward. "It is recommended that even if content does not conform at a
specific level, that it conform to the extent possible."

Proposed Change:
"It is recommended that even if content *cannot be made to* conform
*to all criteria relating to* a specific level, that it conform to the
extent possible."

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have rewritten the introduction and this phrasing is no longer present.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: Awkward wording for new technologies bit
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0334.html
(Issue ID: 2189)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

\"...developed to cope with the new technologies that are continually
emerging and with the accessibility issues and strategies that are
emerging to address them.\"

Proposed Change:
\"...developed to allow for new technologies, potential accessibility
issues that result from their use, and strategies that emerge to
address these issues.\"

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

Thank you. We have updated the draft as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: Apologetic whining in \"Sufficient Techniques\" explanation
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0335.html
(Issue ID: 2190)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Sufficient Techniques, 3rd para: "The working group went
through the effort to document..."

To be harsh...booohooo. Is this aiming for sympathy?

Proposed Change:
"The working group documented..."

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have rewritten the introduction and this phrasing is no longer present.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:09 UTC