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

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007 (2 of 4)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:05:13 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032205r1eb568d0p47ad96b1daa491b6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Comment 10: Comma and "but" in "Advisory Techniques"
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0336.html
(Issue ID: 2191)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Advisory Techniques", 1st para:
"...that may enhance accessibility that did not qualify..."

Proposed Change:
"...that may enhance accessibility, but did not qualify..."

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 11: "Web Page" definition
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0337.html
(Issue ID: 2192)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Web Page", 2nd para:
"...off of the shelves around them into a visual shopping cart..."

Proposed Change:
"...off of the shelves around them and into a visual shopping cart..."

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

Thank you. We have rewritten this example and removed this error.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: "Web Page" definition and user agents
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0338.html
(Issue ID: 2193)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Web Page", 2nd para:
"If assistive technologies cannot do this..."

Proposed Change:
"If *user agents* cannot do this..."

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

AT are examples of user agents, and the critical test is whether AT
can.  We know of no examples where the information is available to AT
but not to other user agents. If user agents can, but AT cannot, then
it would not be Accessibility supported.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 13: "Web Page" definition and user agents, pt 2
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0339.html
(Issue ID: 2194)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Under "Web Page", 2nd para:
"This lets user agents and assistive technologies..."

Should AT be considered a subgroup of user agents?

Proposed Change:
"This lets user agents (including assistive technologies)..."

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

Thank you, we have updated this phrase to read, "This lets user
agents, including assistive technologies, ..."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: "Programmatically Determined" awkward sentence
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0340.html
(Issue ID: 2195)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The majority of the 2nd para of "Programmatically Determined" seems awkward.

"This is important because of the continually ... may very well become
accessible in the future."

Also, it's more about the *potential* for being used by AT, and
doesn't express whether or not AT actually does support it in practice
(that's for authors to check from known lists of features supported by
AT).

Proposed Change:
"The term determines if content has the *potential* to be recognised
and used by user agents / assistive technologies. However, it does not
determine whether or not current user agents / AT do actually support
and expose this type of content in practice."

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

his section has been rewritten and part of what you were concerned
with is no longer there.  With regard to "potential", accessiblity
supported means more than content technologies have the potential to
be supported.  They must in fact have AT support.  See the definition
of accessibility supported in the conformance section.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 15: "Programmatically Determined" addition to last sentence
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0341.html
(Issue ID: 2196)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...list those techniques and technologies that meet the requirements
over time."

Proposed Change:
"...list those techniques and technologies that meet the requirements
over time, based on known user agent / assistive technology
implementations."

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 16: "Accessibility Supported" comma and small change
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0342.html
(Issue ID: 2197)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

1st para:
"it is essential that the technologies work... criterion that requires
it to be "programmatically determind" for example, it would..."

Proposed Change:
"it is essential that *these* technologies work... criterion that
requires it to be "programmatically determind"*,* for example, it
would..."

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

Thank you. We have moved this text to the Understanding Document and
have it to read as follows:

"In order for content created with Web technologies (such as HTML,
CSS, PDF, GIF, MPEG, Flash etc.) to be accessible to people with
different types of disabilities, it is essential that the technologies
used work with the accessibility features of browsers and other user
agents, including assistive technologies. In order for something to
meet a success criterion that requires it to be "programmatically
determined," it would need to be implemented using a technology that
has assistive technology support."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 17: "Accessibility Supported" awkward sentence
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0343.html
(Issue ID: 2198)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

3rd para:
"Authors who don't know which technologies or which aspects...should
consult documented..."

Cut out the whole "who don't know" middle bit.

Proposed Change:
"Authors should consult documented..."

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 18: Rewording 1.1 slightly to include pure text, and a comma
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0344.html
(Issue ID: 2199)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...into other forms people need such as large print..."

Proposed Change:
"...into other forms people need, such as *pure text*, large print..."

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

Text alternatives are by definition pure text.  So it would not make
sense to talk about converting text into pure text. But you have the
right idea in that pure text is a goal of the guideline.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 19: 1.1. Non-text Content / Controls-Input
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0345.html
(Issue ID: 2200)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...then it has a name that describes its purpose."

Name? Should it not be label, if it's an input control? The term
"label" would seem tech agnostic enough, so not just a reference to
<label> element in HTML, so could be applicable to all types of
content.

Proposed Change:
"...then it has a *label* that describes its purpose."

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

"Name" is defined in the glossary as "text by which software can
identify a component within Web content to the user," which is
available to assistive technology but may or may not be visually
presented while "label" is defined to be always visually presented.
The success criterion requires that a name be provided, but not that
it be visually presented. For example, consider a phone or serial
number field where there is one label at the left but then several
text fields next to the label. Each field would need a name to
identify them to AT, e.g. "(area code) (first 3 digits of phone
number) (last 4 digits of phone number)" respectively, but they would
not each need a visible label.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 20: prerecorded or pre-recorded?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0346.html
(Issue ID: 2201)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

1.2.3. has "pre-recorded", 1.2.4. has "prerecorded".

double-checking now, it appears that both have been used
interchangeably throughout the document. Settle on one spelling.

Proposed Change:
Suggest changing all occurrences of "pre-recorded" to "prerecorded" in
entire document.

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

We have changed to prerecorded throughout.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 21: Can CSS colour be classed as "programmatically determined"?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0347.html
(Issue ID: 2202)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined."

Thinking of CSS, one could argue that CSS colour values can be
"programmatically determined". How can that kind of thing be excluded
to get back to the actual meaning behind this SC?

Proposed Change:
Sorry, no idea...but it needs clarification unless the group feels
it's adequately covered by the definition of "Programmatically
Determined" and the admonition to authors to check known UA/AT
implementation/support.

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

The explanation of the need for alternate presentation of color is
given by Success Criterion 1.4.1 . While it might be possible for
color values to be programmatically determined under SC 1.3.1, the
usefulness of that is doubtful. We have added a note to explain this
fact in the understanding document for SC 1.3.1.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 22: just applicable to "instructions"?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0348.html
(Issue ID: 2203)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"Instructions provided for understanding and operating content do not rely..."

Surely this applies to all content, not just instructions.

Proposed Change:
"Understanding and operating content *does* not rely..."

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

The proposed change would exclude content that must describe sensory
characteristics of content related to real world objects. For example,
auto repair and product assembly instructions online may need to
describe sensory characteristics of the process.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 23: just \"people with disabilities\"?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0349.html
(Issue ID: 2204)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"Make it easier for people with disabilities to see and hear..."

Surely this applies to ALL users, not just those with disabilities.

Proposed Change:
"Make it easier for users to see and hear..."

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

Thank you. We have changed to "users'"

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 24: just "visually" evident?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0350.html
(Issue ID: 2205)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

"...is also simultaneously visually evident without the color..."

just visually evident?

Proposed Change:
"...is also simultaneously evident (and programmatically determined?)
without the color..."

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

Success criterion 1.4.1 speaks specifically to the case of visual
perception of color. Non-visual perception is covered by success
criterion 1.3.1.  We have added a note to 1.4.1 to be sure that people
note that the issue you raise is covered by 1.3.1.

"Note: This success criterion addresses color perception specifically.
Other forms of perception are covered in Guideline 1.3."
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:05:51 UTC

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