- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:07:01 -0700
- To: "Peter Wallack" <peter.wallack@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Peter Wallack, 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: Requirement for '7.) Full Pages' may be too narrow Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0393.html (Issue ID: 2259) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- With the move to Web 2.0, it is possible that a 'single' web page is re-used to render vastly different content, which previously might have been presented as individual pages. In an extreme case, one can imagine an entire application suite rendering in a single 'web page', such that a browser 'Back' takes them completely out of the application. In such a case, if a single piece of content were not accessible, as currently worded the entire application would not be able to claim conformance. Proposed Change: We suggest that the wording be broadened so that exceptions within a 'page', when using such dynamic content, can be specifically listed. Or alternatively, the definition of 'web page' be broadened to account for dynamic content on the screen. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- If part of an application doesn't conform, the application as a whole may not conform; but we do have the ability in the conformance to provide accessible alternatives to non-conforming content within a page which may allow the application as a whole to conform even of parts of the page do not. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Description of the URI' does not map well to a 'product' Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0394.html (Issue ID: 2260) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Required component #4 discusses the 'description of the URIs'. In the case of a shipped product, the actual URI of the installed product is unknown, and in any case is mostly irrelevant as users will not necessarily navigate any of it via a 'URL'. Proposed Change: A description of the URIs, or the Product name, that the claim is being made for, including whether subdomains are included in the claim. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Respond with: We have added the following note to clarify how claims should be made for such comments: "Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to installation on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the product would conform when installed." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: Handling non-conformance of one of many pages in a product Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0395.html (Issue ID: 2261) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Further to a prior comments about 'products' and 'web pages', how is a vendor to handle the situation where, for example, 1 out of 1000 web pages of a product do not conform? Since our desire is to create the conformance statement at the 'product' level we need a mechanism to list exceptions. Proposed Change: Provide an additional provision of the required components of the conformance claim so that individual non-conforming pages of a 'product' can be enumerated. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The current language already allows you to describe a scope of conformance that would list a range (or product) and cite any pages that are non-conforming.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:07:14 UTC