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

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 22:55:32 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711042155x31febd09qba7ccf84ba3229b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Nov 3, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>


Loretta,
I do not think I will ever understand how a page that does not markup
language changes can ever be considered accessible.  Try using a
screen reader on a page with multiple languages.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:11:12 -0700
>From: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
>Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007
>To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
>
>Dear Jon Gunderson,
>
>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: Language changes should be Level A
>Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0048.html
>(Issue ID: 1969)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612134547.CA28447B9F@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-760)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: TE
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>This should be success criteria 1 like in the Priority 1 WCAG 1.0
>requirement.  It is impossible for people using speech to guess at
>language changes.  We have a lot of web based foriegn  language
>courses at UIUC and we have identified that speech users cannot
>determine when to manually switch their synthesizer languages, even
>when they know that there are more than one language on the resource.
>
>If changes in language are available modern screen readers will
>automatically switch the lanaguge of the synthesizer.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Move this requirement to Success Criteria 1
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>There were comments to combine 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, to move them up and to
>move them down. After much discussion, the consensus of the working
>group was to leave them in the current positions.
>
>Response from Jon Gunderson:
>The working group response is very disappointing.  I believe it is
>probably much easier for someone to guess the overall language of a
>web resource than language changes within the web resources.  I cannot
>understand any arguments on why language CHANGES are not critical for
>accessibility especially for anyone using speech (Visual impairments
>and learning disabilities).  I have seen students have to drop courses
>at UIUC because language changes were not part of the content.  In the
>era of on-line learning you will be allowing content with multiple
>languages to comply at a Single-A level without their content being
>usable by many people with disabilities.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>The working group spent much time considering 3.1.2 at a higher level.
>However, the working group did not feel there was enough to move it to
>level A and there are good reasons for not requiring it at level A.
>SC 3.1.2 had many complicating factors with respect to what exactly is
>a change of language in a passage.  A rather lengthy note was added to
>clarify situations that are not to be considered a change of language.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 2: Conformance section is confusing
>Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0049.html
>(Issue ID: 1970)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612141417.35612BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-762)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: TE
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>These requirement seems to deal with collections of web resources
>(units).  I think that this should be stated that you are creating
>some type of conformance for a collection of resources. It would make
>it much clearer.  I think this should also be in the conformance
>section.
>
>If a resource does not meet the requirements, it just doesn't meet the
>requirements.
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>1. Move this requirement to conformance section
>2. Clearly state you want people to be able to make conformance claims
>on collections of resources.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have revised the conformance section significantly and have
>clarified how claims for collections of versions can be made: 4.)
>Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success
>criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an
>alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be
>derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism
>meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The
>alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
>original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple
>pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
>versions are required for each language offered.
>
>Response from Jon Gunderson:
>I think the conformance section is confusing.  Suggesting a page that
>is not accessible is now accessible because it references an
>alternative page that is accessible is misleading about the page.  The
>only thing that is accessible is the alternative page and that should
>be the only thing that can be labeled as passing.  The linking page to
>the alternative stands on its own accessibility merits.  This type of
>conformance option also perpetuates the myths that accessibility means
>creating something so different that alternative page is needed and
>accessibility is a burden since it requires twice the work to create
>duplicate pages.  This was a necessary requirement for WCAG 1.0, but I
>think is out date for the world we live in now.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We no longer refer to a page as conformant if it has a conforming
>alternative.  But we do allow pages with conforming alternate versions
>within the scope of conformance since we do not know how to make some
>content technologies directly accessible.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 3: add our titling requirement as a technique for creating
>accessible titles
>Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0050.html
>(Issue ID: 1971)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140004.F18FF66364@dolph.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-838)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1. If descriptions of an
>image are SC1, then are not descriptions or titles of a web page of
>equal importance? This should be merged with requirements of 2.4.5 and
>that descriptions/titles should be \"unique\" for collections of a web
>resources as part of the success criteria.
>
>See UIUC Web Accessibility Best Practices:
>http://html.cita.uiuc.edu/nav/title.php
>
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>I recommend this requirement be moved to SC1 and merged with the
>requirements of 2.4.5.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>We have added "descriptive" to SC 2.4.3 and moved it to level A.
>
>The success criterion does not require that titles be unique because
>the working group is concerned that requiring uniqueness will lead to
>titles that are not as descriptive and usable. It may be very
>difficult to create titles that are descriptive, unique, and
>reasonably short. For example, a Web page that generates titles
>dynamically based on its content might need to include part of the
>dynamic content in the title to ensure that it was unique.  We are
>also concerned that authors may make titles unique mechanically, such
>as by including a unique number in the title that is unrelated to the
>content. For these reasons, although we encourage unique titles in the
>techniques for this SC, we are not including uniqueness in the SC
>itself.
>
>SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
>and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
>may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
>the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
>descriptive power.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 4:
>
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060621140642.A792066364@dolph.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-839)
>
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>
>If descriptions of an image are SC1, then are not descriptions of a
>web page titles and headings of equal importance?
>
>Proposed Change:
>
>Change to SC1.  Consider merging with requirement of SC 2.4.3.
>
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>
>SC 2.4.5 has been moved to Level AA. It addresses descriptive headings
>and labels, which may need to be understood in context. While headings
>may not have sufficient descriptive power in isolation, when viewed in
>the context of a structured document, they do have sufficient
>descriptive power.
>
>Response from JRG:
>Titling in our best practices in more than just the TITLE element.  It
>includes matching the TITLE content with H1 content on a web page.
>This provides a machine verifiable way for testing for unique titles.
>While automated tools can be easily fooled, the web developer
>obviously has to know they are doing it to get around this
>requirement.  I think titling is just as important as text equivalents
>for images.
>
>I request that you add out titling requirement as a technique for
>creating accessible titles:
>http://html.cita.uiuc.edu/nav/title.php
>
>Tools for testing titling using TITLE and H1 and other accessibility features:
>
>Firefox Accessibility Extension
>http://firefox.cita.uiuc.edu
>
>Functional Accessibility Evaluator
>http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you for you suggestion. We have added an advisory technique for
>SC 2.4.2 (Web pages have descriptive titles) of "Using unique titles
>for Web pages." This technique will complement the advisory technique
>for SC 2.4.6 (Headings and labels are descriptive) of "Using unique
>section headings in a Web page."  It is not always appropriate for
>TITLE and H1 to contain exactly the same text. TITLE often contains
>the web site name but H1 usually does not (e.g. because there's a logo
>outside H1 that serves that purpose).
>
>Conformance to the Guidelines is based on the Web Page in question,
>not the site. There are some cases when it would be very difficult to
>require a unique Title for every page on a web site. There are also
>many grey areas about what makes up a web site. Is a corporate site
>that has divisions and servers in dozens of countries one web site or
>many sub sites? Some sites have millions of pages. To require unique
>Title for each page would be extremely difficult especially in cases
>where there are different responsibility centres in different
>countries governing different areas of a site.
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology (DRES)

WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 05:55:51 UTC

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