- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:21:39 -0700
- To: "Wendy Chisholm" <chisholm.wendy@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Wendy Chisolm, 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: Can "conforming alternate versions" be objects on a page? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0091.html (Issue ID: 2542) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- I evaluated a web site that uses SilverLight to create an in-page streaming media player; SilverLight is not (yet) an accessibility-supported technology. Immediately after the SilverLight object is a link to a windows media version of the multimedia. (Assuming the wmv is accessible), would you consider the wmv a "conforming alternate version?" The supporting documentation for "conforming alternate version" implies that the whole page needs an alternative. In this case, only one object on the page needs an alternative. Proposed Change: A sufficient technique Gn: Providing a link immediately after a nonconforming object that points to an alternate version that does meet WCAG 2.0 at the level claimed Or does that open a can of worms? If the nonconforming object is an email application, then a link after it would be similar to G136. ?? From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0092.html : Looking at the SilverLight media player example, as long as it does not interfere with the rest of the page Non-Interference") and the content is provided elsewhere (in wmv, "Accessibility Supported Technologies Only") and is linked to from the page, then I could claim that the page conforms. Right? --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Correct. The 'alternate version' refers to a full page, but the page you describe would conform since all the information is conforming or has accessible alternative that is available from the page. We have also added your general technique with a slight edit for clarity. Providing a link immediately after a non-conforming object that links to a conforming alternate version (future link) ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0093.html (Issue ID: 2543) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Overall, I think this draft is good (caveat: I only reviewed the Level A SC). I am disappointed by the lack of a Level A success criterion for liquid layout (1.4.4), but I do not think that should stop the document from moving forward. I evaluated a real-world site with multimedia, images, forms, scripting (including a change of context on focus), timing, non-accessibility supported technologies, and a tag cloud where font size has meaning. The evaluation put each Level A success criteria to the test. While I had to dig through many situations and techniques to fully understand some of the success criteria, ultimately I was able to understand almost everything (only a little confusion on 1.1.1 and conformance - see my other comments). While the site that I evaluated failed several of these criteria, I was able to suggest specific fixes that would allow the site to claim Level A conformance - and more importantly - increase its accessibility to people with disabilities. I believe that WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- Thank you. By moving to Last Call, you can tell that we feel it is ready as well. We were able to substantially improve it with the feedback over the last year - and we look forward to tuning it further - particularly in the area of techniques for different technologies as we move through implementation. We do have a sufficient technique, "G146: Using liquid layout," as a recommend way to satisfy SC 1.4.4. If you have additional suggestions related to liquid layout, please feel free to submit them using our technique submission form.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:22:03 UTC