- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:11:05 -0700
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Shadi Abou-Zahra, 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: clarifying how to evaluate complete processes or transactions Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jul/0021.html (Issue ID: 2316) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- A complete process or transaction may include different alternative paths depending on user profiles, user tasks or other factors (e.g. a checkout process may be different depending on if the user is already logged in the system, or registered but not logged in, or a new member. It may be different also depending of the information provided by the user or the mistakes that are made while introducing data) >From an external perspective (external reviewer or auditor) it could be hard (or even impossible) to get an idea about all the existing paths and scenarios of a process as it requires a very good knowledge of its design, so the question that arises is if all different variants need to be considered, or testing just one of the possible complete paths may be enough. Proposed Change: If the testing of all possible variations is going to be required, there should be a clarification about this in the guidelines and related documents to acknowledge the issue and help guide evaluators who want to review web sites (as opposed to developers building the site) Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 11:02:19 GMT --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- There is no requirement for testing at all. But if a process may take different paths and require different pages, the current language would require that all the pages that could be involved would have to conform or have alternatives that met Conformance Requirement 6.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:11:19 UTC