- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:21:45 -0700
- To: "Brian Hardy" <Brian.Hardy@visionaustralia.org>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Brian Hardy, 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: Unclear wording of Sufficient Technique H73 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0035.html (Issue ID: 2413) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Summary attribute should give an overview of "the layout of" the data. (e.g what is in the columns and rows) Summary of the content is provided in the caption (or accompanying text) Proposed Change: Add the words "the layout of" after "overview of --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have accepted your suggestion and changed the description to say: "The objective of this technique is to provide a brief overview of how data has been organized into a table or a brief explanation of how to navigate the table." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: General Advice is listed as a failure Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0036.html (Issue ID: 2414) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Under failures is a technique promoting good Practice (G140) Proposed Change: Move technique G140 to the correct location in the document --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. We have corrected this error. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: Additional failure technique needed Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0037.html (Issue ID: 2415) Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Using CSS to position content allows the content in the underlying to be in a random order. This makes the content incomprehensible for screen reader users and very difficult for those using keyboard access. This should be specifically shown as a a failure Proposed Change: Additional Failure technique needed or modify failure F1 to pick up this issue --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Regarding pages not making sense without CSS, F1 already covers this. The test for F1 is to turn off CSS and the result must make sense. Regarding keyboard navigation, if the source order is meaningful (as required), then the keyboard navigation would follow that order as per SC 2.4.3 Focus Order. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Conformance Level wrong for SC 1.4.3 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0038.html (Issue ID: 2416) Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Having sufficient contrast on a website is critical for people with low vision. Without it the website content is not available Use of assistive technolgy such as Magnifiers does not overcome this problem. While it may be possible to use a stylesheet to change the contrast, this is an necessary and unreasonable burden on the user. It is easy to build websites with reasonable contrast and is basic to accessible design. Proposed Change: Change from Level AA to Level A. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We considered this at length and we have left 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) at level AA. There are ways, using either operating system or User Agent 'highlighting' or 'contrast' tools/features to create high contrast text. For example, setting the system highlight to always highlight text as black text on yellow background. Since there are ways to make text high contrast, we did not require it at Level A due to the restrictions it places on color palettes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Additional requirement for contrast controls Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0039.html (Issue ID: 2417) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The contrast control option must itself be of sufficient contrast and located prominently at the top left of the website Proposed Change: Add a sentence to the Note. "The contrast control itself must meet the minimum contrast ratio and must be prominently located on the website near the 'top' of the page" --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Because there were a number of questions about the note and there are other success criteria where similar notes would apply, we have removed the note and updated the titles of the sufficient techniques as follows: For 1.4.3 (situations A and B): Providing a control with at least a 5:1 contrast ratio that allows users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast (future link) For 1.4.6 (situations A and B): Providing a control with at least a 7:1 contrast ratio that allows users to switch to a presentation that uses sufficient contrast (future link) ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 6: Technique G142 Insufficient Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0040.html (Issue ID: 2418) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Many zoom options in user agents cause the page to display in ways that are incomprehensible or confusing. There availability is not sufficient Proposed Change: After "user agents that support zoom" add the words "and the page is still fully usable with the zoom function active." --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have added the following to the description: This technique requires that the zoom function preserve all spatial relationships on the page and that all functionality continues to be available. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: Word "limited" in handle is confusing Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0041.html (Issue ID: 2419) Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Unclear what is limited in the the title. Not clear that it means there are exceptions Proposed Change: Change "Limited" to "Some Exceptions" Refer also to comments on SC 1.4.9 --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have revised the handles for 1.4.5 and 1.4.9 to "Images of Text" and "Images of Text (No Exception)." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 8: Word "Essential" in handle is confusing Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0042.html (Issue ID: 2420) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The word "Essential" is confusing - The real intent here is that there are no exceptions. Proposed Change: Change "Essential" to "No Exceptions" --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have revised the handles for 1.4.5 and 1.4.9 to "Images of Text" and "Images of Text (No Exception)." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 9: Conformance Level wrong for SC 2.2.2 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0043.html (Issue ID: 2421) Status: PENDING ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Moving of blinking text that cannot be stopped can prevent some people with learning disabilities, aspergers syndrome etc. from accessing any other content. They become absolutely fixated on the scrolling content. It is also very distracting for people using their peripheral vision to access content (as a result of say Macular Degeneration Proposed Change: Change conformance level from Level AA to Level A --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The working group response to this issue is still pending; we will reply to this issue separately. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 10: Reference to "users with disabilities" inappropriate Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0044.html (Issue ID: 2422) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- The point is that users are able to navigate etc. It is unnecessary and meaningless to limit this specifically to users with a disability. Under this guideline I have a hearing impairment so I should be able to navigate etc.. My colleague without an apparent disability should NOT be able to navigate etc.??? The whole of WCAG is about access for people with disabilities - There is no need to specifically mention them in one Guideline Proposed Change: Delete words "with disabilities" --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have have changed "users with disabilities" to "users" in 2.2 and 2.4. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 11: Bypass Blocks handle confusing Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0045.html (Issue ID: 2423) Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Unclear what is being by-passed "Blocks"? Need to clarify by adding blocks of content Proposed Change: Add words "of content" after work "Blocks" --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We have kept the success criteria "handles" as short as possible. The intent for the handles is not to substitute or shorten the success criterion. Instead, they are meant to provide enough information about the success criterion that they will help users identify and remember them. In this case, the working group did not feel that the addition of "of content" was necessary. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 12: Additional failure technique needed for SC 2.4.3 Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0046.html (Issue ID: 2424) Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- A common problem is that the source code order does not match the visual page order (created by CSS positioning), particularly for interactive elements. So a failure should be that source code order does not match the visual page order and that there is no other technique used to ensure that interactive elements are brought into focus in the correct order (e.g. Tab Index in HTML) Proposed Change: Add a new failure. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- The working group considered adding a success criterion that the programmatically determined reading order match the visual order, but felt that there was often not a unique visual order, particularly for complex pages such as Web applications. However, if the navigation sequence of interactive elements affects the meaning of the Web page, Success Criterion 1.3.2 (Level A) is not satisfied. We have two failures in 1.3.2 that address your concerns: F49: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.2 due to using an HTML layout table that does not make sense when linearized F1: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.2 due to changing the meaning of content by positioning information with CSS When the content contains interactive elements, SC 2.4.3 also applies. G59 "Placing the interactive elements in an order that follows sequences and relationships within the content" is a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.3, and we're planning to add the sufficient technique "Making the source order match the visual order (future link)" We also have a failure of SC 2.4.3: F85: Failure of Success Criterion 2.4.3 due to using dialogs or menus that are not adjacent to their trigger control in the sequential navigation order ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 13: Missing Success Criteria - Acronyms Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0047.htmlv (Issue ID: 2425) Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- There is no requirement under this guideline for Acronyms to be identified. For users of screen reading technologies this has the potential to make the content unreadable (E.g. ACT in Australia stands for Australian Capital Territory, but a screen reader would read "act") Proposed Change: Add a Success Criteria requiring that Acronyms are able to be Programatically Determined - Level AA --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Acronyms are a type of abbreviation and are therefore covered by the "abbreviation" provision. The definition of abbreviation points this out: abbreviation shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the original expansion has not been rejected by the organization that it refers to and where the abbreviation has not become part of the language Note: This includes initialisms and acronyms where: 1.initialisms are shortened forms of a name or phrase made from the initial letters of words or syllables contained in that name or phrase Note 1: Not defined in all languages. Example 1: SNCF is a French initialism that contains the initial letters of the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer, the French national railroad. Example 2: ESP is an initialism for extrasensory perception. 2.acronyms are abbreviated forms made from the initial letters or parts of other words (in a name or phrase) which may be pronounced as a word Example: NOAA is an acronym made from the initial letters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:21:59 UTC