Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

Dear WCAG WG,

Thanks for your comments.  Here are my replies.

Best regards,
-Masahiro Hori

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: clarification of the term 'perceivable'
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0069.html
> (Issue ID: 2520)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "users must be able to perceive the information being presented (it
> can\'t be invisible to all of their senses)"
> 
> This statement for Principle 1 still relies on the term 'perceivable',
> and does not fully clarify the state of becoming aware of the
> availability of the information.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "users must become aware of the availability of the information being
> presented through the senses (it can\'t be invisible to all of their
> senses)"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> The provisions only deal with making content perceivable.   Making
> people aware of the availability is also a good goal but is different
> than what is done with the "Perceivable" guidelines and success
> criterion.
> 
> Awareness of availability would be more in the Operation or
> Understanding principles.
> 

I accept this response.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: clarification of the term 'understandable'
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0070.html
> (Issue ID: 2521)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "users must be able to understand the information as well as the
> operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot be
> beyond their understanding)"
> 
> This statement for Principle 3 distinguishes 'understandable' as being
> separated from 'operable'.  However, it is not clear if the state of
> being understandable still includes that of being perceivable.
> 
> If it is correct to assume that the states of being perceivable
> (Principle 1), operable (Principle 2), and understandable (Principle
> 3) are mutually exclusive, the above statement may be changed in the
> way as proposed below.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> "This means that users must be able to interpret the meaning of
> information correctly as well as the perception of the information and
> the operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot
> be beyond their understanding)".
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> The principles are not really mutually exclusive.  They must all be
> true, but they do depend on each other.
> 
> We believe our current language is shorter and more accurate.
> 

I accept this response.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3: a voice easy to understand (G 1.1)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0071.html
> (Issue ID: 2522)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "spoken in a voice that is easy to understand,"
> 
> This guideline should specifically focus on perceivable presentation
> of information rather than its understandability that is a primary
> focus of Principle 3.  In that sense, it should be possible to reword
> the above phrase "spoken in a voice that is easy to hear", but it
> seems to be odd and redundant within the original sentence.  So, it
> would be better simplify the phrase.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Simply change to "spoken in a voice"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Yes, this was not clear. What it is meant to say is that it is spoken
> and is therefore easier to understand than if only printed. So, we
> have changed the phrase in Understanding SC 1.1 to "spoken aloud so
> that it is easier for people with reading disabilities to understand"
> 

I am satisfied with your resolutions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: meaningful sequence (SC 1.3.2)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0072.html
> (Issue ID: 2523)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> This criterion focuses on semantic consistency and issues related
> understandability rather than perceivability. That is a point should
> be covered by Principle 3, specifically under Guideline 3.2.
> 
> In addition, the phrase "perceive meaning" is confusing, because
> perceiving is a key term in the whole of this document.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Move this criterion under Guideline 3.2, and change the wording
> "perceive meaning" to "grasp meaning".
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> This provision is about the ability to reorganize the text while
> maintaining the original intent; that is, the ability to perceive the
> correct order makes the text easier to understand.  It could be moved
> to principle 3, but it is so closely related to 1.3.1 that we feel it
> is better here.
> 
> We did change "perceive meaning" (in the Understanding 1.3.2) to
> "understand the meaning".
> 

I am satisfied with your resolutions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 5: usable default presentation (G 1.4)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0073.html
> (Issue ID: 2524)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "making the default presentation as usable as possible"
> 
> Guideline 1.4 should focuses more on the ease of perceiving rather
> than the ease of use in general.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Change the wording "as usable as possible"
> 
> to "as accessible as possible"
> 
> or "as easy to perceive as possible"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We have updated the sentence to read "... as easy to perceive as possible ..."
> 

I am satisfied with your resolutions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 6: understand the speech output (SC 1.4.2)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0074.html
> (Issue ID: 2525)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "hard to understand the speech output"
> 
> It makes sense in general to say 'hard to understand'. However,
> Guideline 1.4 is specifically concerned with making content
> perceivable rather than understandable.  It is better to reword the
> phrase to be more specific to Principle 1.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Change to "hard to hear the speech output"
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We have updated the text as proposed.
> 

I am satisfied with your resolutions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 7: understand the speech (SC 1.4.7)
> Source: hhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0075.html
> (Issue ID: 2526)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> "... who is hard of hearing can understand the speech.\"
> 
> 
> 
> It makes sense in general to say 'understand the speech'. However,
> Guideline 1.4 is specifically concerned with making content
> perceivable rather than understandable. It is better to reword the
> phrase to be more specific to Principle 1.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Change "can understand the speech" to "can separate the speech from
> background sounds or other nose"
> 
> Then, remove the sentence followed: "Individuals who are hard of
> hearing have difficulty separating speech from background sounds or
> other noise."
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We have included your suggestions as proposed.
> 

I am satisfied with your resolutions.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 8: descriptive titles (SC 2.4.2)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0076.html
> (Issue ID: 2527)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> This criterion requires that page titles should be descriptive so that
> users can more quickly identify the content they need. This is an
> issue relevant to ease of understanding rather than operation.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
> descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
> in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.2 under the new guideline.
> 
> See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.4, 2.4.6, and 2.4.10.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
> much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.
> 

Navigation is the process of moving and/or guiding users' focus
from one place to another via landmarks.  Initially, I assumed
that hyperlinks are the only landmarks.  I'm afraid this view
has been hindered comprehensive understanding of success
criteria 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, and 2.4.10.

However, if landmarks include not only hyperlinks but also page
title, headings, labels, and section headings; that clarifies
the idea behind those criteria.  If this is correct understanding,
it would be helpful to make explicit that assumption, and put
the following statement into the glossary.

Navigation:
   the process of moving and/or guiding users' focus from one place
   to another via landmarks.  Landmarks include hyperlinks, focus
   elements, page titles, headings, labels, and section headings.


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 9: purpose of each link (SC 2.4.4)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0077.html
> (Issue ID: 2528)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> If this criterion is not met, additional keystrokes may be needed for
> assistive technology users. However, note here that the way to remedy
> that situation is not by improving ease of typing or operation but by
> making link text more understandable. In this sense, SC 2.4.4 is
> concerned with the understandability of link text rather than the ease
> of operation or physical interaction with link text.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
> descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
> in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.4 under the new guideline.
> 
> See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.6, and 2.4.10.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
> much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.
> 

My reply is the same as the one made for Comment 8 (Issue ID: 2527).

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 10: descriptive labels (SC 2.4.6)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0078.html
> (Issue ID: 2529)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> According to the statement "The intent of this Success Criterion is to
> help users understand what information is contained ...", this
> criterion is concerned with the understandability of link text rather
> than the ease of operation in itself.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
> descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
> in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.6 under the new guideline.
> 
> See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.10.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
> much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.
> 

My reply is the same as the one made for Comment 8 (Issue ID: 2527).

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 11: section headings (SC 2.4.10)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0079.html
> (Issue ID: 2530)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Since this criterion primarily concerns with meaningful or semantic
> organization of the content rather than syntactic organization, the
> main issue related to this criterion is on the understandability of
> section headings.
> 
> It is stated that "but visual presentation is not sufficient to
> identify document sections", which indicates SC 2.4.10 focuses on an
> issue that cannot be resolved with regard to perceivability.
> 
> In addition, according to the second note in SC 2.4.10, namely, "Note:
> This Success Criterion covers sections within writing, not user
> interface components", this criterion does not intend to focus on an
> aspect of physical interaction.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Add a guideline for understandable navigation (e.g., Provide
> descriptive titles, labels, and headings to help users find content)
> in Principle 3, and move SC 2.4.10 under the new guideline.
> 
> See also the same proposal for SC 2.4.2, 2.4.4, and 2.4.6.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> We used to have "navigation" as a principle, but found there was too
> much overlap with the "operable" and "understanding" principles.
> 

My reply is the same as the one made for Comment 8 (Issue ID: 2527).

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 12: G 3.1 covers perceivability as well as understandability
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0080.html
> (Issue ID: 2531)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> This guideline is concerned with a process of making information
> available for understanding. That requires to present information to
> users in ways they can perceive ("in a way they can read" in the
> context of this guideline), which is intended by Principle 1 (as
> explained in Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0). Guideline 3.1
> thus overly includes criteria to be covered by another guideline under
> Principle 1.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Guideline 3.1 should be divided into two. One is "Readable: Make text
> content available for understanding" (including success criteria
> 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.6 because these criteria are not concerned with
> the meaning in itself), which is to be put under Principle 1.
> 
> Another is "Complementary text: Make unusual text understandable"
> (including success criteria 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5 because these
> criteria are concerned with the meaning) that should remain under
> Principle 3.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> In this provision, reading is referring to the process of changing the
> text into received language code.   It is more related to decoding and
> understanding than to perception.   So, we believe Principle 3 is the
> proper location for it.
> 

I accept this response.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 13: Consistent Presentation (SC 3.2.3)
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0081.html
> (Issue ID: 2532)
> Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> This criterion intends "to encourage the use of consistent
> presentation and layout for users", and help users distinguish
> repeated content taking account of presentational or syntactic
> consistency.  This aspect should be covered by Guideline 1.4.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Rename this criterion "Consistent Presentation", and put it under Guideline 1.4.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> Guideline 1.4 is about ability to perceive, not to understand.  This
> is about understanding the layout, not about being able to perceive
> it.
> 

I accept this response.


-- 
Masahiro Hori, Prof., Ph.D.
Faculty of Informatics, Kansai University
Tel: +81-(0)72-690-2415 / Fax: +81-(0)72-690-2491
E-mail: horim@res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp
Home Page: http://www.res.kutc.kansai-u.ac.jp/~horim/

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 20:29:41 UTC