W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2007

FW: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Don Barrett <donter@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:34:44 -0500
To: <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-id: <003001c81edf$146e4390$4101a8c0@donbarrett>

All comments were correctly understood, and I am satisfied with all
decisions as to their disposition.

Don Barrett
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:22 AM
To: Don Barrett
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

Dear Don Barrett,

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: Add clarification that this SC does not apply to a normally
time-sensitve activity when the req. has been waived for users with
disabilities
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0162.html
(Issue ID: 1949)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

Criterion 2.2.1 Timing, contains the sentence:
"Essential Exception: the time limit is part of an activity where timing is
essential (for example, time-based testing) and time limits can not be
extended further without invalidating the activity."

In many instances, the time requirement for normally time-sensitive
activities such as time-based testing is waived for individuals with
disabilities to compensate for the interface inefficiencies of assistive
technology.  Consider adding a qualifying sentence explaining that this
exception shall not apply to a normally time-sensitive activity when the
time requirement has been waived for individual(s) with disabilities.

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

Since it's possible to extend the time limit in such cases, then the
time limits would not be essential. We have removed "(for example,
time-based testing)" from 2.2.1 to avoid confusion, and added
explanation to Understanding 2.2.1 about timed tests.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: consider adding "unless these blocks of content constitute
the bottom of the Web page"
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0162.html
(Issue ID: 1950)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

For the criterion "2.4.1 Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass
blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages," consider adding
a qualifying phrase such as: "unless these blocks of content constitute the
bottom of the web page."  I have seen developers use skip navigation links
for skipping repeated navigation bars which serve as page footers.  This
results in confusing and superfluous page elements.

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

Keyboard users also have a need to skip over repeated materials at the
end of the page (so they can return to the top).

We have added a sufficient technique titled:

Providing a link to "jump to top of page" if the repeated material is
at the bottom of the page.



----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: change "and" to "or"
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0162.html
(Issue ID: 1951)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

In Criterion "2.4.4 Link Purpose (Context): The purpose of each link can be
determined from the link text and its programmatically determined link
context," I believe the "and" should be changed to "or."  By keeping it as
"and," this would effectively prohibit the use of links such as "more," and
"click here," as they could never meet both qualifiers.  In other words, the
purpose for these links could never be determined from the "link text" thus
making the "and" an impossible bar.  The use of "or" would allow for either
test to suffice and include conformance with both as well.

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

We have changed SC 2.4.4 to read "2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): The
purpose of each link can be determined from the [link text] alone, or
from the link text together with its programmatically determined link
context, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to
users in general."

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Consider moving 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 to Level A
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0162.html
(Issue ID: 1952)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

For all of the following criteria, please consider making them Level A
instead of AA unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

3.2.3 Consistent Navigation: Navigational mechanisms that are repeated on
multiple Web pages within a set of Web pages occur in the same relative
order
 each time they are repeated, unless a change is initiated by the user.
(Level AA)

3.2.4 Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality
 within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. (Level AA)

3.3.3 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For forms that cause
legal commitments or financial transactions to occur, that modify or delete
user-controllable data in data storage systems, or that submit test
responses, at least one of the following is true: (Level AA)

list of 3 items
1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible.
2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for
input errors before going on to the next step in the
process.
3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and
correcting information before finalizing the transaction.

list end

3.3.4 Labels or Instructions:
Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input. (Level
AA)

3.3.6 Error Prevention (All): For forms that require the user to submit
information, at least one of the following is true: (Level AAA)

list of 3 items
1. Reversible: Transactions are reversible.
2. Checked: Submitted data is checked for
input errors before going on to the next step in the
process.
3. Confirmed: A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and
correcting information before finalizing the transaction.

list end

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

With regard to moving these all to these to A from AA.

3.2.3, Consistent Navigation
This is too broad a requirement to have at level A.  There are reasons
where it may be desirable, more usable and more understandable to
change the order of the navigation elements from one page to another.
 This was level AA in WCAG 1.0 as well.

3.2.4, Consistent Identification  - The success criterion's purpose is
to support consistency in direct access to content by people who use
conventional user agents, rather than providing additional support for
alternate renderings via assistive technology. And it does place more
limits on visual presentation. For these reasons, we believe Level AA
is the appropriate level.


3.3.3, Error Prevention (Legal...)   This is a new provision in WCAG
2.0 and the working group is not sure that it can be applied in all
situations. The group is not comfortable shifting these two provisions
(3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data):) and (3.3.6 Error
Prevention (All): ) up a level to A and AA.


3.3.4  Labels or Instructions:
* This one has been moved to Level A


3.3.6  Error Prevention (All):      This is a new provision in WCAG
2.0 and the working group is not sure that it can be applied in all
situations. The group is not comfortable shifting these two provisions
(3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data):) and (3.3.6 Error
Prevention (All): ) up a level to A and AA.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 12:35:32 UTC

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