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 22:11:05 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032211g5872afcdj95cf35ef587db09d@mail.gmail.com>
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

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: 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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC