- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:18:17 +0000
- To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Just to confirm that, beyond the concerns I raised separately for issues 2462 and 2512, I'm happy to say that I'm satisfied with the responses and resolutions outlined by the group for all other issues. P Loretta Guarino Reid wrote: > Dear Patrick Lauke, > > 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: Combine "usable in general" and "older individuals" > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0000.html > (Issue ID: 2453) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > The 2nd para sounds a bit stilted and, in the second half, seems to > jump from users with disabilities, to users in general, to degrees of > disability, and then back to (general)/older users. > > Proposed Change: > Reorder sentences and merge the two general ones. > > ...and neurological disabilities. Although these guidelines cover a > wide range...and combinations of disabilities. These guidelines also > make content more usable by older individuals with changing abilities > due to aging, and often improve usability for all users in general. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Good suggestion. We have included your suggestion as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 2: "Webmasters" > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0001.html > (Issue ID: 2454) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > The term "Webmasters" is certainly outdated, and often today just > refers to the technical maintainer of a server. > > Proposed Change: > Replace "Webmasters" with "Web designers and developers" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated this section as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 3: Metadata sentence right at the end > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0002.html > (Issue ID: 2455) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > This last sentence on metadata comes almost out of the blue, and seems > almost an afterthought. Also, it doesn't explain what metadata this > might actually be...what format? Additionally, are there actual tools > deployed today that take advantage of any such metadata, whatever its > format? > > Proposed Change: > Either remove the sentence, or take this opportunity to clarify with a > few more sentences in a separate paragraph WHAT metadata, HOW it > should be implemented, and what concrete uses there are today? > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > That sentence was added in response to specific requests for an > indication of the role that metadata can play. We have added a link > to the word METADATA that leads to a description such as you ask for > that is in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 Document. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 4: Missing full stop > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0003.html > (Issue ID: 2456) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > A full stop is missing in "Accessibility Supported" explanation > > Proposed Change: > "...technologies can be used to conform to WCAG 2.0 Success > Criteria*.* Technologies that are..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. This typo has been fixed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 5: Add reference to 1.2.1 > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0005.html > (Issue ID: 2457) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > The note for 1.2.3 already mentions prerecorded synchronised media, > but it may be worth adding the explicit reference back to 1.2.3 and > dropping the "in WCAG 2.0." > > Proposed Change: > "...requirements for prerecorded synchronised media (see 1.2.1)." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have removed the note as a result of other comments and a > reorganization of some the success criteria in guidelines 1.1 and 1.2. > Note that an explicit reference to 1.2.1 (now 1.2.2) was not included > since many of the success criteria under guideline 1.2 also relate to > prerecorded synchronized media. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 6: Add reference to 1.4.1 > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0006.html > (Issue ID: 2458) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Although color is treated in 1.4, it is nonetheless a sensory > characteristic. Should it be added to the list, with a note > referencing 1.4.1? > > Proposed Change: > "...components such as shape, *color,* size, visual location, > orientation or sound. (Level A) > > Note: issues specific to color are covered in Guideline 1.4 (see > specifically 1.4.1)." (or similar) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have added the following note to Success Criterion 1.3.3: > > Note: For requirements related to color, refer to Guideline 1.4. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 7: Awkward wording in SC 1.4.2 > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0007.html > (Issue ID: 2459) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Awkward wording > > Proposed Change: > "...audio volume which can be set *independently* from the *overall* > system volume level..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated Success Criterion 1.4.2 as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 8: Clarification of note / awkward phrasing > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0008.html > (Issue ID: 2460) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "one quarter as loud" sounds stilted. also, the note may benefit from > being prefaced by something like "In simple terms," or "As a rough > measure," or "As a rule of thumb,"... > > Proposed Change: > Preface note with "In simple terms," or "As a rough measure" or "As a > rule of thumb," followed by "sound that meets this requirement will be > approximately four times quieter than the foreground speech content." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have revised the note to read as follows: > > In general, background sound that meets this requirement will be > approximately four times quieter than the foreground speech content. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 9: 80 characters? > Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20080201003754.9BF965F70B@stu.w3.org > (Issue ID: 2462) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "width is no more than 80 characters" sounds arbitrary...do you > actually intend to talk about "line length", which is not necessarily > bound to just the number of characters, but can also be influenced by > the size/shape of the typeface used? > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > It is somewhat arbitrary. We could have chosen 72, for example, which > is another common line length. We chose 80 to be a bit more relaxed > and because that is a standard in computers where as 72 is more > standard in typewriters. The goal is to limit line length from being > too wide. The number of characters is the only thing that can be > reliably measured. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 10: aligned on both left and right > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0011.html > (Issue ID: 2463) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "text is not aligned on both the left and the right" > > generally, this is referred to as "justified" > > Proposed Change: > "text is not justified (flush both left and right)" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated the bullet to read, "text is not justified (aligned to > both the left and the right margins)." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 11: line spacing > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0012.html > (Issue ID: 2464) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "line spacing" is generally referred to as "leading", but its usage > may admittedly be less known outside of proper graphic design circles > > Proposed Change: > "leading (line spacing) is at least..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated this bullet to read, "line spacing (leading) is at least..." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 12: what if it's not the author's fault? > Source: \"line spacing\" is generally referred to as \"leading\", but > its usage may admittedly be less known outside of proper graphic > design circles (Issue ID: 2465) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > a known issue with flash in firefox is the fact that the plugin traps > the keyboard (and can even prevent tabbing *into* the flash movie), > while the same plugin works as expected in IE. where does an author > stand in this situation, where it's the UA's fault? > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > In a case like this - where it is a shortcoming of one browser, but > not a problem with other browsers - we would say that it was a > reasonable assumption by the author that the user could exit. The > Working Group would encourage the author to provide an additional > redundant function which allows the user to exit that they know does > work in most browsers. > > Refer to Understanding Accessibility Support for additional information. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 13: GL 2.4: "with disabilities" > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0014.html > (Issue ID: 2466) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > this Guideline and Guideline 2.4, are the only ones that explicitly > mention users "with disabilities". why are they being singled out? are > the guidelines not just as valid for "users in general, and older > individuals..." like it says in the intro? > > Proposed Change: > remove "with disabilities" from the wording of the guideline > completely (and in the ToC, of course) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have have changed "users with disabilities" to "users" in 2.2 and 2.4. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 14: "with disabilities", take two > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0015.html > (Issue ID: 2467) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > this Guideline and Guideline 2.2, are the only ones that explicitly > mention users "with disabilities". why are they being singled out? are > the guidelines not just as valid for "users in general, and older > individuals..." like it says in the intro? > > Proposed Change: > remove "with disabilities" from the wording of the guideline > completely (and in the ToC, of course) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have have changed "users with disabilities" to "users" in 2.2 and 2.4. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 15: arbitrary values? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0016.html > (Issue ID: 2468) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "Extend: ... at least ten times or > ... > > 20 Hour Exception: the time limit is longer than 20 hours." > > ten times and 20 hours seem completely arbitrary. why were they > chosen? if they *are* arbitrary, this needs to be clarified with > appropriate wording. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > The 10 times extension was chosen to increase the response tail by 10 > times to pick up those who need more time, but to limit the total > number of repeats so that it is not endless. The number 10 harmonizes > WCAG with other international standards. > > Twenty hours was chosen in consultation with industry to allow > sessions to be closed in less than 24 hours to clear their servers - > even if they have no way to push a warning to users - but to allow > people who might need a full day to complete actions to have the time. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 16: flashing dependent on size? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0018.html > (Issue ID: 2470) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > As with 2.3.1 (see my previous comment on that too), i believe there > is still a size limitation (or is even a single pixel subject to > this?) > > Proposed Change: > Add relevant wording about the size of the flashing area (relating it > to percent of the field of view or similar). Also include in the > related "Understanding..." bit. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Whereas 2.3.1 uses the term "general flash and red flash thresholds," > which includes all of the metrics size of the area, 2.3.2 has not > such limits. As a result, even a single pixel flashing would violate > 2.3.2. > > The following has been added to understanding to make this clear. > > "Whereas 2.3.1 allows flashing if it is dim enough or has a small > enough area, 2.3.2 does not allow flashing greater than 3 per second > regardless of brightness or size. A single pixel would violate 2.3.2. > The intent is to guard against flashing larger than a single pixel, > but since an unknown amount of magnification or high contrast setting > may be applied, the prohibition is against any flashing." > > Because the definitions are normative, these metrics are also normative. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 17: SC 2.4.5: sweeping generalisation? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0019.html > (Issue ID: 2471) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > The wording seems far too general. Does this apply even to a site with > only 3 or 4 pages? How about a site consisting of a single page? > > Proposed Change: > Clarify *when* this applies (and no *arbitrary* numbers of pages, > please, unless the wording makes it clear it's only an arbitrary > figure) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > A site consisting of a single page is not a set of Web pages, so > success criterion 2.4.5 would be satisfied in this case. > > We have added a sufficient technique to 2.4.5, "Linking to all of the > pages on the site from the home page so that it can serve both as a > home page and as a site map." > > In addition, we have added the following paragraph to the > Understanding document to clarify that there are techniques that may > be appropriate for small sites. > > "Even small sites should provide users some means of orientation. For > a three or four page site, with all pages linked from the home page, > it may be sufficient simply to provide links from and to the home page > where the links on the home page can also serve as a site map." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 18: dependent on UA? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0020.html > (Issue ID: 2472) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Surely this is dependent for the most part on the UA itself? Authors > should not have to worry, *unless* they're actively overriding focus > (e.g. via CSS styling), in which case the wording needs to be changed. > Specifically setting very visible additional focus hints via CSS can > certainly improve usability/accessibility, but this is only in > addition to what the UA already does (and if the UA complies with > UAAG, even its default should be enough not to be a barrier to users) > > Proposed Change: > If this is more along the lines of authors actively overriding focus > (e.g. via CSS styling), the wording needs to be changed...maybe > "Authors should not override or suppress any default focus > indicators". This would also require a rewrite of the relevant "How to > meet" and "Understanding" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > SC 2.4.7 is often satisfied by the user agent with no special action > required by the author. The first sufficient technique listed, "G149: > Using user interface components that are highlighted by the user agent > when they receive focus", describes this situation. > > However, when authors create custom controls, the custom controls may > not inherit the user agent's built-in support for focus highlighting. > In this case, it is the author's responsibility to ensure that there > is some visible indication when the custom control has keyboard focus. > > Because there are also Web pages where authors actively remove the > focus highlight provided by the user agent, this success criterion is > needed for the content itself. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 19: so headings are optional then at anything below AAA? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0021.html > (Issue ID: 2473) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > as headings (thinking HTML here) are absolutely essential in conveying > document structure, i'm wondering why this SC is relegated to AAA. i'd > have seen this more at AA at least. (compare with WCAG 1 checkpoint > 3.5) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We had a number of comments that mistake the purpose of success > criterion 2.4.10 and success criterion 1.3.1. > > Success criterion 1.3.1, which is at level A, requires that anything > that looks like a heading is marked up as a heading. > > Success criterion 2.4.10 says that anywhere you could use a heading, > you have to insert one. This provision is included at level AAA > because it cannot be applied to all types of content. It is often not > possible to insert headings. For example, if you are posting a > pre-existing document, you do not have the ability to insert headings > that an author did not include in the original document. Or, if you > have a long letter, it would often cover different topics, but putting > headings into a letter would be very strange. > > However, if a document can be broken up into sections with headings, > it facilitates both understanding and navigation. For this reason, it > is a success criterion. But, because it can't always be done (or be > appropriate) it is at level AAA. > > We have added this explanation to Understanding SC 2.4.10. > > Failure F2 also speaks to this: > > F2: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text > presentation to convey information without using the appropriate > markup or text. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 20: ambiguous if not clear from context already? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0022.html > (Issue ID: 2474) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > with the current wording, it sounds like *any* word that could be > ambiguous needs to be covered by a mechanism. however, i assume this > implies "yes, there may be different meanings for this word, but only > specify pronunciation *if* the current context doesn't disambiguate > it". > > Proposed Change: > change wording > > "...where meaning is ambiguous (even in the current context) without > knowing the pronunciation" > > or add a note > > "this SC does not cover situations in which the specifically intended > meaning of the word is clear from the existing context" > > also consider modifying "How to meet..." and "Understanding..." accordingly. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > What you suggest is what the sentence is intended to mean. So we have > changed the SC to read: > > 3.1.6 Pronunciation: A mechanism is available for identifying specific > pronunciation of words where meaning of the words, in context, is > ambiguous without knowing the pronunciation. (Level AAA) > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 21: "well formed" > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0023.html > (Issue ID: 2475) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > use of "well formed" could help shorten this, or at least clarify with > a commonly-used term from the html/xml world. > > Proposed Change: > "...Content implemented using markup languages *is /well formed/ - it* > has elements with..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > It is true that the guidelines now essentially require that content in > markup languages be well formed. However, exact parsing requirements > vary amongst markup languages, and most non XML-based languages do not > explicitly define requirements for well formedness. Therefore, it was > necessary to be more explicit in the success criterion in order to be > generally applicable to markup languages. Because the term "well > formed" is only defined in XML, and because end tags are sometimes > optional, valid HTML does not require well formed code. Therefore, we > felt we could not use that term. > > We have added a note to the understanding document to help clarify this: > > Note: The concept of "well formed" is close to what is required here. > However, exact parsing requirements vary amongst markup languages, and > most non XML-based languages do not explicitly define requirements for > well formedness. Therefore, it was necessary to be more explicit in > the success criterion in order to be generally applicable to markup > languages. Because the term "well formed" is only defined in XML, and > (because end tags are sometimes optional) valid HTML does not require > well formed code, the term is not used in this success criterion. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 22: Awkward wording > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0025.html > (Issue ID: 2477) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Awkward, potentially confusing wording? > > Proposed Change: > "(Conformance is not possible at *a particular* level if *any page* in > the sequence *does* not conform at that level.)" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have revised the sentence as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 23: Optional components and the hint of metadata > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0026.html > (Issue ID: 2478) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "1. ... that consumers can use, preferably machine-readable metadata." > > this seems to suggest that users can already consume metadata today. > are there any such tools widely available that take advantage of > metadata? if so, what are they? > > 5. and 6. also talk about metadata...however fail to suggest, or even > mention, any such metadata standard or format. > > Proposed Change: > Either add hard information on metadata (e.g. currently available > formats/vocabularies), or drop the whole metadata talk (including the > little sentence in the intro) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > There are currently metadata technique titles listed in the Quick > Reference and Understanding documents. Currently, they are advisory > due to lack of support in AT and other tools. We expect this to change > over the years - and awareness is important to progress in this area. > > Rather than including more detail about metadata as a concept, we > provide a link to more complete resources in the "Understanding > Metadata" section of the understanding document. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 24: awkward phrasing - Statement of partial conformance > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0058.html > (Issue ID: 2509) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Proposed Change: > "...article that allows users to add comments, or applications..." > (remove "to the bottom", which is irrelevant) > > > > "...such as portals and news sites, or sites that automatically insert > content from other sources over time." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. We have included these wording suggestions as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 25: abbreviation refers to "organization"? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0059.html > (Issue ID: 2510) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > the whole "...has not been rejected by the organization that it refers > to..." seems very out of place, and is not applicable to apply to all > types of abbreviations > > Proposed Change: > remove the sentence, as it seems wholly irrelevant. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > There are companies like Ecma where, before 1994, ECMA was an > initialism for "European Computer Manufacturers Association," but when > the company changed it's name it kept "Ecma" as a trademark for > historical purposes, but no longer recognized it as an abbreviation. > > But, as you have highlighted, if it is not, then it is not and the > phrase cited is not needed. We have therefore moved the phrase into an > explanatory note. > > The definition and note now read as follows: > > abbreviation > > shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the abbreviation > has not become part of the language > > Note: There are some companies that have adopted what used to be an > initialism as their company name. In these cases, the new name of the > company is the letters (for example, Ecma) and the word is no longer > considered to be an abbreviation. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 26: Statement of partial conformance - both cases - awkward > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0060.html > (Issue ID: 2511) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "In both of these cases, it is not possible..." > > Proposed Change: > change to "In these cases, it is not possible..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have incorporated your suggestion as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 27: Statement of partial conformance - immediately? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0061.html > (Issue ID: 2512) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > In point 1, I think the two instance of "immediately" are simply > unrealistic. What is "immediately"? It's just not possible. > > Proposed Change: > either remove the two instances of "immediately", or change wording to > something more realistic ("within a reasonable timescale"?) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have removed "immediately" and added "within two business days." > This way, it is clear that the intent for claims of partial > conformance is that corrections are made as a regular monitoring > process encounters non-conforming content. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 28: accessibility supported - users' assistive technologies > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0063.html > (Issue ID: 2514) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > awkward having "users' assistive technologies" 3 times in point 1. > > Proposed Change: > remove "users'" and just say "assistive technologies", unless I'm > missing a fundamental reason why you're making a point of saying that > it's *users'* AT. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > As you guessed, the word "users'" has significance. The key here is > that the technologies need to be accessible not to *all assistive > technology,* but to the assistive technologies of the users of the > site. > > For example, if the site is an *intranet* and used only within a > company, then only the technologies used within the company would need > to be supported. If it were a public site, then a wider range of > assistive technologies would need to be supported. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 29: activity where moving, blinking... > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0064.html > (Issue ID: 2515) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > the explanation is lengthy, and doesn't really say more than the term > it tries to clarify. maybe just focus on writing something that > explains what's meant by "essential" > > Proposed Change: > just explain "essential" as "which, if removed, would fundamentally > change the functionality of the content" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have added a definition of essential that reads: > > essential > if removed, would fundamentally change the information or > functionality of the content, and information and functionality can > not be achieved in another way that would conform > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 30: assistive technology - stray word > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0065.html > (Issue ID: 2516) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "Example: Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the > context of this document include the following:" > > Proposed Change: > Remove the first "Example: " > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. We have removed the duplicate text. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 31: blink vs flash > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0066.html > (Issue ID: 2517) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > the distinction between "blink" and "flash" still isn't clear. is > blink simply a special case of "flash"? > > Proposed Change: > either clarify how the two differ, or merge their definitions > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Blink and Flash are not mutually exclusive. Some blinking can cause > seizure while other blinking would not. They are two overlapping > circles in a Venn diagram. > > We have added links to the definition of "flash" in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. > > This is explained in greater detail in the understanding documents for > 2.2.2 and 2.3.1: > > Note: The terms BLINKING and FLASHING can sometimes refer to the same content. > > * "Blinking" refers to content that causes a distraction problem. > Blinking can be allowed for a short time as long as it stops (or can > be stopped) > > * "Flashing" refers to content that can trigger a seizure (if it is > more than 3 per second and large and bright enough). This cannot be > allowed even for a second or it could cause a seizure. And turning the > flash off is also not an option since the seizure could occur faster > than most users could turn it off. > > * Blinking usually doesn't occur at speeds of 3 per second or more, > but it can. And if blinking occurs faster than 3 per second it would > also be considered a flash. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 32: captions - awkward wording > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0067.html > (Issue ID: 2518) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "text presented and synchronized with synchronized media..." > > Proposed Change: > change to "text used in synchronized media..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have revised the definition of captions as follows: > > captions > > synchronized visual or text equivalent for both dialog and > non-dialog audio information needed to understand the media content > > Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions > convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for > non-dialog audio information needed to understand the program content, > including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and > location. > > Note 2: Closed Captions are equivalents that can be turned on and off > with some players. > > Note 3: Open Captions are any captions that cannot be turned off. For > example, if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded > in video. > > Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information > in the video. > > Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles. > > Note 6: Audio descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned > since they are descriptions of information that is already presented > visually. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 33: conforming alternative version - awkward wording > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0068.html > (Issue ID: 2519) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "4. for which one at least of the following is true:" > > also, isn't point c just a special case of b? > > Proposed Change: > change to "4. for which at least one of the following is true:" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Yes, that was a typo. The word "one" was misplaced. > > No, "c" is not a subset of "b". One is about *the* conforming > alternative page. > The other is about *a* conforming page that links to *the* conforming > alternative page. > > For example, a landing page that contains links to both the conforming > and non-conforming versions would satisfy case "c", but not case "b". > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 34: contrast ratio - generalised copy > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0098.html > (Issue ID: 2548) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > this just mentions foreground/background color, but not adjacent > color. for clarity, it may be worth dropping the "of the foreground or > background" bit altogether > > Proposed Change: > for clarity, it may be worth dropping the "of the foreground or > background" bit altogether > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have removed foreground and background from the basic definition of > contrast. It is now only in the notes talking about how to apply it. > > See http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 35: extended audio - clarification in note > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0099.html > (Issue ID: 2549) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > note could be expanded for clearer understanding > > Proposed Change: > at the end of the note, add ". and the pauses between dialog/narration > are too short." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have added your proposed text to the end of the note. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 36: flash > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0100.html > (Issue ID: 2550) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > does this need any further clarification of the size of the area that flashes? > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > In the definition of general flash and red flash thresholds, the size > is defined in terms of angle of vision. Specific information about > key application areas is also provided in that definition. If you have > suggestions for information that would also be helpful, please send > them along. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 37: general flash and red threshold - confusing jargon? > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0101.html > (Issue ID: 2551) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > this section introduces a lot of specific jargon and technical wording > ("steradians") and unqualified measures ("0.1 degrees" ... of what?") > > Proposed Change: > clarify measures and avoid jargon > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have clarified the .1 degree. A steradian is the accurate term to > use for this provision, which is very technical in nature. Wherever > possible, we also provide a plainer language equivalent. (in the case > of steradians, we included a parenthetical which describes in in terms > of percent of visual field). > > Note that this particular provision can only be evaluated using the > simple test (less than 3 flashes per second) which is very simple - or > by using a tool. The exact technical language is used to make tool > making more accurate and technically clear. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 38: navigated sequentially > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0102.html > (Issue ID: 2552) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > mention of "keyboard"...but this should possibly be expanded to > "keyboard interface" > > Proposed Change: > replace "using the keyboard" with "using a keyboard interface" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have included your proposed change and linked the updated text to > the definition of "keyboard interface." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 39: non-text content > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0103.html > (Issue ID: 2553) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "leetspeak (which is character substitution)" sounds awkward > > Proposed Change: > replace with "leetspeak (which *uses* character substitution)" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated the text as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 40: programmatically determined / programmatically determinable > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0105.html > (Issue ID: 2554) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > this comes after "programmatically determined (programmatically > determinable) link content" > > Proposed Change: > move above/before "programmatically determined (programmatically > determinable) link content" definition > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have reordered and simplified the defined terms to > "programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)" and > "programmatically determined link context." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 41: programmatically determiend - typo > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0106.html > (Issue ID: 2555) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > typo in "determiend" > > Proposed Change: > change to "determined" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. We have corrected this typo. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 42: real-time event > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0107.html > (Issue ID: 2556) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > mentions "fantasy world" - sounds a bit strange to single out WoW and similar? > > Proposed Change: > replace with "virtual world" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated the example as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 43: role > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0108.html > (Issue ID: 2557) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "text or a number" the a is superfluous > > Proposed Change: > replace with "text or number" > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated the definition as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 44: set of Web pages - clarify > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0109.html > (Issue ID: 2558) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "collection of Web pages that share a common purpose..." > > worth mentioning these pages should also be on the same site (i.e. not > same purpose pages on different sites)? > > Proposed Change: > replace with "collection of Web pages *on the same site* that share a > common purpose..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Some sets of Web pages may not be on the same site. For example, the > last step in a set of Web pages on a shopping site may appear on a > separate site. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 45: set of Web pages - unnecessarily convoluted > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0110.html > (Issue ID: 2559) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "and that are created...organization" > > sounds awkward, not always true - thinking of multi-author > environments - and addressed if my previous point is considered > (limiting the set of Web page to the same site) > > Proposed Change: > remove entire "and that are created...organization" sentence > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > If this phrase is removed, the definition becomes too inclusive, > allowing too many things to be considered a set of Web pages. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 46: supplemental content > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0111.html > (Issue ID: 2560) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "Example 3: A paragraph describing..." > > but the outcomes should already be present in the study....so it's not > describing, but summarising? > > Proposed Change: > change to "Example 3: A paragraph summarising..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have updated the example as proposed. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 47: synchronised media - awkward > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0112.html > (Issue ID: 2561) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "audio o video synchronised with another format..." > > > > awkward wording > > Proposed Change: > change to "different media elements (audio, video, text\") ..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We have revised the definition of captions to address this and other comments. > > captions > > synchronized visual or text equivalent for both dialog and > non-dialog audio information needed to understand the media content > > Note 1: Captions are similar to dialog-only subtitles except captions > convey not only the content of spoken dialog, but also equivalents for > non-dialog audio information needed to understand the program content, > including sound effects, music, laughter, speaker identification and > location. > > Note 2: Closed Captions are equivalents that can be turned on and off > with some players. > > Note 3: Open Captions are any captions that cannot be turned off. For > example, if the captions are visual equivalent images of text embedded > in video. > > Note 4: Captions should not obscure or obstruct relevant information > in the video. > > Note 5: In some countries, captions are called subtitles. > > Note 6: Audio descriptions can be, but do not need to be, captioned > since they are descriptions of information that is already presented > visually. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 48: viewport - awkward > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0113.html > (Issue ID: 2562) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "User agent user interface" > > Proposed Change: > change to "A user agent's interface..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We agree, but since this is is based on a term defined elsewhere > within W3C publications, we have chosen to retain the original > wording. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 49: user interface component - missing comma > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0114.html > (Issue ID: 2563) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > "...programming techniques but ..." > > Proposed Change: > change to "...programming techniques*,* but ..." > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Thank you. We have added the missing comma. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 50: web page example 4 > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0115.html > (Issue ID: 2564) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > example 4 may need clarifying ... this is in effect a single-page website? > > Proposed Change: > specify that ex4 deals with a single-page site > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > This *could* be a one page Web site, but could also be a feature > within a larger site. In most cases, it would not be a single-page Web > site. Since making the example be a single page Web site might > confuse the issue the working group felt it better leave it as it is. > > We have added the following to the end of example 4 "This might be a > single page Web site or just one page within the Web site." > -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 01:18:39 UTC