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: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ETS.ORG>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:36:11 -0500
Message-ID: <FEB6AB8A99344C4A8EF1369D25A2A045708F1D@rosnt108.etslan.org>
To: <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>

Yes. You have adequately addressed the issues below. Thanks!

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 3:21 PM
To: Hansen, Eric
Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

Dear Eric Hansen,

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: Complete Process requirement
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2298)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

A. Processes. I am not sure what to make of the "complete processes"
requirement. Is it correct that to reach a certain level of conformance,
all of the following must be true:

		1. All Pages Must Conform. All primary content pages
specified via URIs in claim must conform (though resources for primary
or alternate versions may use resources that go beyond the URIs in the
claim).

		2. No Page May Be Part of a Process That Includes a
Non-Conforming Page. No primary (or it is primary and alternate version)
content page may be part of a process that has a nonconforming page.

I could be mistaken but I think that the document may not be specific
about the locations of alternative versions (point 1). Also, I not sure
that point 2 is made clearly enough. I am not sure I see any guidelines
or success criteria that enforce or clarify the conformance requirement
of point 2. I am not sure at this time whether it is practical or
necessary to do more than you have done, but I am also uncomfortable
with some vagueness about the scope of things that would be considered
processes.

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

The answer to your first question is "correct." However, the location of
the alternate is not specified. As long as the user can get to it,
we do not see a reason to specify a particular location.   The
"complete process" is a conformance requirement but not a success
criterion because the success criteria all deal with pages and it would
confound scoping if it were at a success criterion level.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: alternate versions and URIs
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2299)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

B. URIs and alternate version and supplemental content. I presume that
the URIs in the claim pertain essentially to primary content. Is it the
case that other URIs (not the claim) might be accessed for alternate
versions or even supplemental content? I wonder if the location of
supplemental content must be accessed with the URIs in the claim.

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

The alternate URI language is removed and replaced with a requirement
that the mechanism be accessibility supported.   This ensures that it
can be reached from the content.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: user agent vs assistive technology
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2300)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

C. Kinds of User Agents. The document may benefit from better
distinguishing between assistive technologies and host or base user
agents. Sometimes the usage gets a little muddy. At one point the
document refers user agents and assistive technologies while it seems to
me that it should have said assistive technologies and other user
agents.

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

Thanks.  We have tried to clean up both the introduction and the
conformance section to make this clearer.   We removed the instance of
"user agents and assistive technologies", making it be "including"
instead of "and".   And we were more careful about use of both and how
they relate to each other.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: characteristics of users
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2301)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

D. Users. The document is oriented around "users" but never makes
explicit the characteristics that of that group. Therefore, if a web
site had users that had no disabilities, then would the actual number
and variety of accessibility features that WCAG 2 requires be
substantially less than for a web site with users with a wide range of
disabilities.

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

  It would be useful for people reading the Guidelines to have a good
overview of people with disabilities and their assistive technologies.
 However a good review of the different disabilities and their AT is
beyond the scope or capabilities of the guidelines.   We have added a
note to the introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0 pointing people to
references.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Editorial suggestions
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2302)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

See Word document attached to comment submission:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/att-0
410/WCAG2-ver17May2007-Eric_Hansen_comments-29Jun2007.doc

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

Thanks for both rounds of edits.  They were very instrumental in
improving the guidelines. Since we reviewed all the edits individually
for both rounds via email and phone and cleared them we won't go into
more detail here.

Thanks again.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: Much improved
Source:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0410.
html
(Issue ID: 2303)
----------------------------
Original Comment:
----------------------------

The document is much improved from the last time I reviewed it. A lot of
great work has gone into this.

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

Thank you. A lot of time and effort
has gone into the draft and it has been difficult at times to find the
best language to express the requirements and advice when it needs to
apply across such a wide (and expanding) variety of technologies. We
think that, although not perfect, this draft is a significant advance in
the right direction. We look forward to new research that is being done
on the Web and on Accessibility that will allow us to go even further in
future efforts.

--------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information.
It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly.
If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute,
or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from
your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.
--------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 20:36:27 UTC

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