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 22:08:40 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032208y8744cfs6d56c6a6d536e374@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Richard Ishida,

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: answering the unspoken questions of the reader quickly
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0008.html
(Issue ID: 1959)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

> Comment 1:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627170742.9C4774F144@homer.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-1370)
>
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/
>
> Comment 1
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2/
> Editorial/substantive: E
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> Introduction
>
> Comment:
> The content of the introduction is long and written in a legalistic
> style that is hard to get through. I think this can putoff, or at
> least scare, web designers and content authors.
>
>
> I suggest that you provide short summaries of each major section,
> written in a friendly style, so that people can get thegist of the
> section. That way the complex normative text can remain, but does not
> have to be read in detail until needed.
>
>
> Also, use more active phrasing. For example, "The set of technologies
> that an author assumes are supported and turned on inaccessible user
> agents is called a baseline." could be written "A baseline is what we
> call the set of technologies that an author assumes aresupported and
> turned on in accessible user agents." This is easier to read, makes it
> easier to find the definition of 'baseline', and gives a quickeridea
> of the content of the paragraph for those who are skimming text.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have reworked the entire document to make it shorter and easier to
> read and understand with different levels of expertise.  This includes
>
> Easier language to understand
> - Wrote simpler guidelines
> - Removed as many technical terms (jargon) as possible replacing them
> with plainer language or, where possible, their definitions
> - Eliminated several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.)
> - Removed the term Baseline and replaced it with "web technologies
> that are accessibility supported" and then defined what it means to be
> accessibility supported.
> - Removed the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e.
> definitions that pointed to other definitions)
> - Tried to word things in manners that are more understandable to
> different levels of Web expertise
> - Added short names/handles on each success criterion to make them
> easier to find and compare etc.
> - Simplified the conformance
>
> Shortening the document overall
> - Shortened the introduction
> - Moved much of the discussion out of the guidelines and put it in the
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 document
> - Shortened the conformance section and moved it after the guidelines
> - Moved mapping from WCAG 1 to a separate support document (so it can
> be updated more easily)
>
> Creating a Quick Practitioner-oriented Summary / Checklist-like
> document
> - Created a Quick Reference document that has just the Guidelines,
> success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria.
>
> We can't always use active phrasing but we have tried to use it
> wherever we could - much more than in last draft (though success
> criteria need to be in a true/false format)
>
> We have summary information at the front, and each guideline and SC
> has a link to more explanatory info.
>
> See if this version isn't easier to use and understand.

This comment from Richard Ishida has been approved during an i18n Core
WG telecon.

This does seem a lot better. Thank you.

There is something important missing for me - a focus on answering the
unspoken questions of the reader quickly at the top of the page.

I think there should be a section entitled "Who should read this?". It
should be the first subsection in the introduction.  It should use
short sentences to say something about who reads what for what
purpose.

I also think much of the difficulty in getting WCAG accepted by
content authors is that they come to the document with the wrong
expectations, and could do with some additional signposting.

The WCAG guidelines are used to (a) set general targets for design,
and (b) to evaluate conformance to accessibility needs.  Most content
authors, however, will typically be asking themselves "How do I find
out what do I need to do, right now, to make this accessible?".  The
more useful document in that case is a well-indexed *techniques
document*.  The guidelines are so abstract and high level that content
authors will struggle to use them for that purpose.

I think the introduction should describe that *very clearly*, and in
terms of the questions the *reader will be asking themselves*.  For
example, the headings "WCAG 2.0 Supporting Documents", and
"Organization of the WCAG 2.0 Document" sound to me like descriptive
titles, written from the point of view of the author of the document
(it answers the question "How can I describe how this all hangs
together?"). It doesn't grab me - it sounds like a chore to read that
stuff. The intended reader, on the other hand, will be asking
themselves "Who is this for (do I need to read it)? What do I need to
read, and where do I start? If this is for me, how do I use this
stuff?".

Structuring the introduction around questions like those will, I
believe, help a great deal.

I also think you should move the section "Components of Web
Accessibility" lower down the introduction. It isn't vital to know
that stuff at such an early point, and it gets in the way of answering
the more burning questions in the mind of the reader.

I would also shorten and rearrange the first few paragraphs of the
introduction.  I think it should be replaced with a short paragraph
describing what this document is for.  Much of the current content is
detail that can be addressed after addressing the reader's burning
questions (Do I need to read this? What do I need to read?) under a
title such as 'Scope'.

(Note also that I feel that the quick reference doc is not much better
for content authors wanting to know what to do. I think that they will
find it easier to use material organized by task, rather than by
abstract groupings.)

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

We have considerably shortened the introduction and tried to address
most of your questions directly.  We did not re-title our section
heads to be questions because this is a technical standard. We do use
that strategy in the WCAG FAQ to great effect.   We have moved
"components of accessibility" out of the document except for a short
statement and a couple links to more information.   We have tried to
answer the key questions you highlight and provide links to further
discussions where the reader is interested.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: Alternative language for example 1
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0012.html
(Issue ID: 1960)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

> Comment 4
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> 3.1.1 Example 1
>
> Comment:
> "A Web unit produced in Germany includes content in both German and
> English, but most of the content is in German. The primary natural
> language is identified as German (de)."
>
>
> If the primary language is expressed using HTTP or meta tags, it is
> possible that both languages should be identified if this is a
> document aimed at a bilingual audience. If the primary language is to
> be expressed in the html element tag, only one language can be chosen.
> This example is too vague. This goes back to the question of what WCAG
> means by 'primary language'.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have clarified our use of primary language to be the default human
> language of the Web page, and we changed SC
> 3.1.1 to read "The default  human language  of each  Web page  within
> the content can be programmatically determined." We included a
> reference to Internationalization Best Practices:
> Specifying Language in XHTML & HTML Content, and added a discussion of
> multilingual documents to the Intent section.
> We added "default" to the example to make it clearer why this
> satisfies the SC.
>
> Currently assistive technologies do not support specifying languages
> in HTTP headers or meta tags, so those techniques are not considered
> sufficient at this time.
>
> HTTP headers and meta tag marking of languages can identify multiple
> languages, as you point out. Specifying multiple languages in the http
> header or in meta-data would not specify a default text processing
> language, so such usage would not satisfy this success criterion. This
> would be discussed when those techniques are written.

The I18n Core WG thanks you for these changes.

We are not sure how useful the example is, without implementation
detail, but that is a different question.  We think we would have
preferred something like "A Web page written in HTML and produced...
The default human language is identified in a lang attribute on the
html element.  Since the lang attribute can take only one value, and
since most of the content is in German, German was specified as the
default human language."

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

We have made the example more specific, so it now reads:

A Web page produced in Germany and written in HTML includes content in
both German and English, but most of the content is in German. The
default human language is identified as German (de) by the lang
attribute on the html element.

Implementation details are typically available in techniques. We have
added the following to technique H57:

Both the lang and the xml:lang attributes can take only one value.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: RFC 4646 and BCP 47
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0024.html
(Issue ID: 1961)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/
>
> Comment 6
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> H57, H58, Resources
>
> Comment:
> There is a pointer to RFC 3066 'Tags for the Identification
> of Languages'. This specification has now been superceded by
> RFC3066bis, although, unfortunately, there is no number for
> the new RFC just yet. We suggest that you add a new link as
> soon as possible.
>
>
> In the meantime, you may wish to point to
> http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html



=================================
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April
> 2006 (2 of 2)

> Comment 17:

> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We have updated the reference to refer to the updated RFC 4646.


Now that things have settled down, the best strategy is to replace all links
to RFC 4646 with links to BCP 47. RFC 4646 will be replaced fairly soon with
another RFC, but BCP 47 will continue to refer to the latest relevant RFC.
The link is:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt

You can still use the same title as the link text.

A similar comment was raised at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0029.html

> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/
>
> Comment 10
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> H57, Tests
>
> Comment:
> Step 3 should say 'conforms to RFC 3066 or its successor',
> since RFC 3066 is now, already out of date, and RFC 3066bis
> should be used. Note that hopefully it will be possible to
> point to its successor very soon - we are awaiting the
> assignment of an RFC number.


> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> We agree with this suggestion and have updated the reference
> to refer to RFC 4646 or its successor.

Again, we suggest you now change "conforms to  RFC 4646: Tags for the
identification of languages  or its successor  [LC-1391]" to "conforms to
BCP 47: Tags for the Identification of Languages"

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

Thank you for the updated references. We have included them in an
updated draft.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Remove example
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0031.html
(Issue ID: 1962)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/
>
> Comment 12
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
> Editorial/substantive: E
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> H58 example 1
>
> Comment:
> Is je ne sais quoi really French still?


=================================
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April
> 2006 (2 of 2)

> Comment 23:

> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> You are correct.  The phrase "je ne sais quoi" is listed in english
> dictionaries.   The example has been removed.

Actually the example is still there.

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

Thanks for catching this. The example has been removed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: XML 1.0 Reference
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0032.html
(Issue ID: 1963)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/
>
> Comment 14
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> H58, Resources
>
> Comment:
> This is a strange version number, and the link points to the
> First Edition, whereas we are up to the 3rd edition now, and
> soon 4th. Please point to the generic URI
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

=================================
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 18 May 2007 00:43
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April
> 2006 (2 of 2)
> Comment 24:

> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> The link has been updated as proposed.

The link is now good, but the link text refers to XML 1.01 - that should
probably be XML 1.0.

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

Thanks. The link text has been updated as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: H34: (example 1) describe that the is placed immediately
alongside the exclamation mark
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0042.html
(Issue ID: 1964)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/

Comment 1
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0706-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:

H34 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H34]

Comment:
The example of source code is problematic, since it assumes a
particular behaviour on the part of the authoring tool (see the
discussion on this at
http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-bidi.html#d2e277 ).

I would recommend just describing that the is placed immediately
alongside the exclamation mark, and showing before and after examples
of the displayed text, as in
http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-bidi.html#ri20030726.140315918

Note, also, that for people to appreciate the examples, their user
agent needs to support bidi text display and Arabic fonts. This is why
I am providing a pseudo-arabic version of the example in our best
practices doc.

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

Response:
Thank you for helping us improve this technique and its example. We
have made the following changes:

* add to Description (before "The character entities for these markers
are..."): "Unicode right-to-left marks and left-to-right marks can be
entered directly or by means of entities."

* change order of numeric character entities and named character
entities in the list at the end of the Description.

* add after this list: "Due to the bidi algorithm, a source code
editor may not display character entities as expected."

* add "Problems with bidirectional source text"
(http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-bidi.html#d2e277)
to related resources.

* change last sentence above example to :"Inserting a Unicode
right-to-left mark (in this case via the HTML character entity)...

* replace named character entity with numeric character entity in code
 of Example 1.

* copy the visual ASCII example from
http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-bidi/#ri20030218.135304584

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: H34: (example 1) implication that you have to use a character entity
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0043.html
(Issue ID: 1965)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/

Comment 2
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0706-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H34 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H34]

Comment:
 You don't have to use a character entity, although that may be
inferred from the current text in H34. In fact, there are more than
one possible issue with that:

- the editor may not display character entities as you'd expect, due
to the bidi algorithm (on the other hand, the editor may make RLM
characters visible, like Notepad does, in which case this becomes a
better solution)

- there is a case for using NCRs rather than character entities in
XHTML, since it is XML-based and the entities are declared outside the
document, and some parsers may not validate when such entities are
involved.

If you keep the example you should probably modify the text to say
"Inserting a Unicode right-to-left mark (in this case via the HTML
character entity) ..." or just indicate that characters, entities and
ncrs are possible approaches.

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

Response:
Thank you for helping us improve this technique and its example. We
have made the changes to the technique described in our response to
your comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0042.html


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: H56: list bidi document in resources section
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0044.html
(Issue ID: 1966)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/

Comment 3
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0706-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H56 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H56]

Comment:
In H34 you say "The concepts used in this technique are described in
What you need to know about the bidi algorithm and inline markup." I
think you should repeat that and add that document to the resources
for H56 too.

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

Thank you. We have added this sentence to H56 as proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9: H56: update link
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0045.html
(Issue ID: 1967)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/

Comment 4
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0706-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H56 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H56]

Comment:
The link in "necessary because the Unicode bidirectional algorithm"
should point to the same version of this document as in H34 (rather
than the copy on my personal site).

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

Thank you. The links now point to
http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/.


----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: H56: issues with example similar to H34
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0046.html
(Issue ID: 1968)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/

Comment 5
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0706-wcag2-techniques/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
H56 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/Overview.html#H56]

Comment:
The use of the example of source text runs into similar problems to
those described for H34. You can see how I attempted to explain this
in examples at http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-bidi.html#ri20030726.140315918

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

Thank you for helping us improve this technique and the example. The
code example now reads:

<p>The title says "<span lang="he"
dir="rtl">&#1508;&#1506;&#1497;&#1500;&#1493;&#1514;
&#1492;&#1489;&#1497;&#1504;&#1488;&#1493;&#1501;</span>, W3C" in
Hebrew.</p>
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:08:57 UTC

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