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

Dear WCAG WG,

Sorry for the delay. We still have some concerns. Please see below.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: Visually customizable text
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0094.html
> (Issue ID: 2544)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> We need to clarify the intent of this SC. In the first bullet, it
> reads "Customizable: The image of text can be visually customized to
> the user's requirements;". What do you mean by "visually customized"?
> Does it include all of the following?:
>
> - Font family
> - Font weight
> - Font color
> - Font size
>
> Proposed Change:
> Need more clarification on what "visually customized" means.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> We have added the following definition as you requested.
>
> visually customized
>  the font, size, color, and background can be set
>
> We have also added the following example to Understanding 1.4.5:
>
> Customizable font settings in images of text
> A Web site allows users to specify font settings and all images of
> text on the site are then provided based on those settings.


Could you show us the concrete/real example or provide URI of the examples?
We are still not sure how to allow users to customize all image of
text on the web page.



> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: Text of Image
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0095.html
> (Issue ID: 2545)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> Does text of image include text generated by SVG?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> SVG is capable of rendering both text and images of text. The
> difference is whether or not the content in question is a "sequence of
> characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence
> is expressing something in human language."
>
> For the purposes of Success Criterion 1.4.5, "text" in SVG could be
> used to meet this requirement as long as it could be programmatically
> determined.


Accept. Thanks very much.


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3: 80 characters
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0096.html
> (Issue ID: 2546)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> In the second bullet, does "80 characters" apply to the Japanese characters?
>
> The character in Japanese are double-byte character in general. For
> the Japanese content, would "40 characters" be appropriate for this?
>
> Proposed Change:
> Need the number for the other languages than the alphabetical
> languages such as CJK characters.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> This is a good point about CJK languages. Thank you. We intended this
> to be about visual presentation, and not the encoding.
>
> There are some studies about readability of the font size of Roman,
> Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters.  These studies showed
> that an easy-to-read font size for Kanji is about two times
> wider than that of Roman characters.  As for Hiragana and Katakana, the
> ratio seems to be a bit smaller than two. In addition, most Japanese
> fixed-width fonts are designed so characters are two times wider than
> Roman characters. So 80 Roman characters span roughly as much
> horizontal space as 40 characters of Japanese Zenkaku (double-byte)
> characters.
>
> We have modified the success criterion so that line lengths for both
> CJK and non-CJK are specified and line lengths are comparable for CJK
> and non-CJK characters. We will also add a number of resources on the
> Japanese research to the Understanding 1.4.8 document.


Thanks. We accept it though we want more detailed rationale on why
"80" was choosen in WCAG related documents.



> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: How to create the documented lists
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0097.html
> (Issue ID: 2547)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> Thank you for providing the detailed information on "Documented lists
> of Web technologies with Accessibility Support". However, We still
> couldn't understand how to create the lists. Will the WCAG WG provide
> the test files and/or the common forms of documentation? We won't be
> able to create the lists for Japanese without those materials. Also it
> would be the same for any other languages. There should be the
> consistency for the documentation among the languages. International
> companies could be annoyed if the documented lists for different
> languages would differ in quality.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> The working group recognizes that the need for information on which
> technologies are 'accessibility-supported' is important to use of the
> guidelines.
>
> Such data can only come from testing different versions of user
> agents and assistive technology and recording whether the features of
> the technology are supported. We expect that this information may
> need to be compiled from multiple sources. WAI will be working with
> others to establish an approach for collecting information on the
> accessibility support of various technologies by different user
> agents and assistive technologies.
>
> WCAG 2.0 is still in development. We expect that during Candidate
> Recommendation period we will have some initial information on
> accessibility supported technologies, to demonstrate how this
> approach will work once WCAG 2.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation.
>
> The Candidate Recommendation process itself requires that there be
> examples that demonstrate conformance. So there will certainly be some
> information about accessibility supported technologies in order to get
> out of the candidate recommendation stage for WCAG 2.0.


Keep this as an open issue.
How to create the documented lists is one of the most important issue
on WCAG 2.0. We are still not sure how it could be done in different
languages/countries.


Please feel free to ask us any question if you have.


JIS Working Group
Takayuki Watanabe, Masahiro Umegaki, and Makoto Ueki


2008/3/11, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> Dear JIS,
>
> Thank you for your comments on the 11 Dec 2007 Last Call Working Draft
> of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211). The WCAG Working Group
> has reviewed all comments received on the December draft. Before we
> proceed to implementation, we would like to know whether we have
> understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with
> our resolutions.
>
> Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
> us by 31 March 2008 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
> you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our
> response. Note that this list is publicly archived.
>
> 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 10 March 2008 at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20080310/.
>
> Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
> you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to
> 3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
> to public-comments-wcag20@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed
> during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C
> Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in
> advance of the meeting.
>
> 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: Visually customizable text
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0094.html
> (Issue ID: 2544)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> We need to clarify the intent of this SC. In the first bullet, it
> reads "Customizable: The image of text can be visually customized to
> the user's requirements;". What do you mean by "visually customized"?
> Does it include all of the following?:
>
> - Font family
> - Font weight
> - Font color
> - Font size
>
> Proposed Change:
> Need more clarification on what "visually customized" means.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> We have added the following definition as you requested.
>
> visually customized
>  the font, size, color, and background can be set
>
> We have also added the following example to Understanding 1.4.5:
>
> Customizable font settings in images of text
> A Web site allows users to specify font settings and all images of
> text on the site are then provided based on those settings.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: Text of Image
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0095.html
> (Issue ID: 2545)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> Does text of image include text generated by SVG?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> SVG is capable of rendering both text and images of text. The
> difference is whether or not the content in question is a "sequence of
> characters that can be programmatically determined, where the sequence
> is expressing something in human language."
>
> For the purposes of Success Criterion 1.4.5, "text" in SVG could be
> used to meet this requirement as long as it could be programmatically
> determined.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 3: 80 characters
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0096.html
> (Issue ID: 2546)
> Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> In the second bullet, does "80 characters" apply to the Japanese characters?
>
> The character in Japanese are double-byte character in general. For
> the Japanese content, would "40 characters" be appropriate for this?
>
> Proposed Change:
> Need the number for the other languages than the alphabetical
> languages such as CJK characters.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> This is a good point about CJK languages. Thank you. We intended this
> to be about visual presentation, and not the encoding.
>
> There are some studies about readability of the font size of Roman,
> Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters.  These studies showed
> that an easy-to-read font size for Kanji is about two times
> wider than that of Roman characters.  As for Hiragana and Katakana, the
> ratio seems to be a bit smaller than two. In addition, most Japanese
> fixed-width fonts are designed so characters are two times wider than
> Roman characters. So 80 Roman characters span roughly as much
> horizontal space as 40 characters of Japanese Zenkaku (double-byte)
> characters.
>
> We have modified the success criterion so that line lengths for both
> CJK and non-CJK are specified and line lengths are comparable for CJK
> and non-CJK characters. We will also add a number of resources on the
> Japanese research to the Understanding 1.4.8 document.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: How to create the documented lists
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0097.html
> (Issue ID: 2547)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
>
> Thank you for providing the detailed information on "Documented lists
> of Web technologies with Accessibility Support". However, We still
> couldn't understand how to create the lists. Will the WCAG WG provide
> the test files and/or the common forms of documentation? We won't be
> able to create the lists for Japanese without those materials. Also it
> would be the same for any other languages. There should be the
> consistency for the documentation among the languages. International
> companies could be annoyed if the documented lists for different
> languages would differ in quality.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> The working group recognizes that the need for information on which
> technologies are 'accessibility-supported' is important to use of the
> guidelines.
>
> Such data can only come from testing different versions of user
> agents and assistive technology and recording whether the features of
> the technology are supported. We expect that this information may
> need to be compiled from multiple sources. WAI will be working with
> others to establish an approach for collecting information on the
> accessibility support of various technologies by different user
> agents and assistive technologies.
>
> WCAG 2.0 is still in development. We expect that during Candidate
> Recommendation period we will have some initial information on
> accessibility supported technologies, to demonstrate how this
> approach will work once WCAG 2.0 becomes a W3C Recommendation.
>
> The Candidate Recommendation process itself requires that there be
> examples that demonstrate conformance. So there will certainly be some
> information about accessibility supported technologies in order to get
> out of the candidate recommendation stage for WCAG 2.0.
>

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 10:53:07 UTC