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 22:08:05 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032208i1d9efc51kd900e047ed305e97@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr Philip J Naylor" <P.J.Naylor@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Philip Naylor,

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: Confusing linkage between documents
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0176.html
(Issue ID: 2039)
Original Comment:

Clicking on a "Understanding X.Y" link takes you straight to the
"Understanding" document, but to get to "Understanding X.Y.Z" in the
"Understanding" document (via links) you need to follow the "How to
meet X.Y.Z" link to the "Quick Reference" document, which then has an
"Understanding X.Y.Z" link to the "Understanding" document.

To further confuse matters while "How to meet X.Y.Z" in the guidelines
links to the "Quick Reference", in the "Techniques" document "How to
meet X.Y.Z" links to the "Understanding" document.

It is not clear why (other than a single link to the document as a
whole) the guidelines should refer to the "Quick Referemce" at all.

Proposed Change:
At the level of individual items the guidelines should refer only to
the "Understanding" and "Techniques" documents, not the "Quick

Response from Working Group:

Thanks for pointing out the confusion.  We have now changed the WCAG
and Techniques documents to have both "Understanding x.x.x" and "How
to meet x.x.x Links"   The Understanding links now all lead to the
Understanding document and the How to Meet all lead to the Quick
Reference.   The Understanding document has also been broken up into
individual short documents, one for each success criteria or guideline
of WCAG.   The How to Meet links go to the Quick Reference to be sure
people know about the Quick Reference, because it is much easier to
decide which technique you want to use if you have a listing of the
techniques for the other provisions as well.

Comment 2: Inconsistent treatment of empty sections
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0177.html
(Issue ID: 2040)
Original Comment:

Section 1.2.3 is missing an \"Additional Techniques\" part.  Even if
there are no techniques , this is inconsistent with other sections
that explicitly say  there are none.

Proposed Change:
Add boilerplate text for a lack of additional techniques in section
1.2.3 (c.f. section 2.2.3).

Response from Working Group:

Thank you. We have updated the draft to correct this error.

Comment 3: Inconsistent handling of empty sections
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0178.html
(Issue ID: 2041)
Original Comment:

Section 2.1.2 is missing parts form \"Common Failures\", \"Additional
Techniques\", \"Examples\", and \"Related Resources\".  Even if there
are none, this is inconsistent with other sections where the lack of
information is explicitly stated.

Proposed Change:
Add boilerplate text to section 2.1.2 for the missing parts, as per
other sections.

Response from Working Group:

We have added the placeholder sections to 2.1.2 to be consistent with
the rest of the document.

Comment 4: Contents ordering is odd
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0179.html
(Issue ID: 2042)
Original Comment:

Reading the document as a standalone item, the (alphabetical) contents
ordering seems odd - especially since it\'s the \"Techniques and
Failures\" document, not \"Failures and Techniques\".

Proposed Change:
I would suggest reordering the content as:

1. General Techniques

2. HTML Techniques

3. CSS Techniques

4. Server-side Techniques

5. Client-side Techniques

6. SMIL Techniques

7. ARIA Techniques

8. Plain Text Techniques

9. Common Failures

Response from Working Group:

Thank you. We have reordered the one-piece version of the Techniques
document based on your suggestion. Note also that we have reorganized
the techniques document such that each technique appears as an
individual page. We have also provided collections of techniques for
each technology as separate resources.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:08:15 UTC

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