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

Dear WG,

Here you have some additional concerns regarding your response to our previous comments on the 11 Dec 2007 WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: Concerns about 80 characters width limit
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-
> wcag20/2008Feb/0046.html
> (Issue ID: 2497)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Having into consideration that the number of characters per line may
> be affected by different parameters (window size, screen resolution,
> font-size...) that are not controllable by the content creator, this
> requirement may be quite difficult (not to say impossible) to fulfill.
> 
> Additionally readability may be also equally affected when the line
> width is to narrow, so I don't understand why to put just top limits
> in case of put any.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> First, it should be noted that if the author does not set the column
> width but lets the text wrap as it will, then he satisfies this
> success criterion. It is only when authors set the column width to
> fixed values that are more than 80 characters wide that a problem
> arises.  Note that the success criterion says, "a mechanism is
> available".  It is only when the author defines font and column width
> etc. in such a way that the user cannot achieve an 80 character line
> length that the author creates a problem.

Then an author can not set any column width at Level AAA, because the suggested technique of using ems width for columns doesn't work as it is shown in the following test case:

[http://www.fundacionctic.org/uaw/test-cases/em-width/test.html] 
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/C20.html]

Note that every paragraph in the test case has a width of 80 ems, but the number of characters per line varies depending mainly on the font family.

No one of the text samples has 80 characters per line, not even near to them, so it is apparently clear that ems widths can not be used to set a column width of any specific number of characters in a reliable way.



> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 4: User agents' incorrect behaviour while navigating sequentially
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-
> wcag20/2008Feb/0050.html
> (Issue ID: 2501)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> Due to some user agents' behaviour, several embedded elements that are
> in theory operable through keyboard (for example a flash component if
> correctly developed) are not reachable through keyboard while
> navigating sequentially.
> 
> How is this success criterion going to affect these elements?
> 
> Could people say that such a web page pass this success criterion?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> 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.

Apparently the current wording, especially F10 and G21, say the opposite.

[http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/F10.html]
[http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/G21.html]

Maybe a reference that points people to some background information for those SCs where the user agent functionality plays a role would help.


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 9: Conformance logos
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-
> wcag20/2008Feb/0055.html
> (Issue ID: 2506)
> Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> 
> There is no mention to WCAG conformance logos. Is there any plan to
> create WCAG 2.0 conformance logos?
> 
> If so, how is going to be the relation between logos and conformance
> claims?
> 
> Once you use the logo, are you required to make a conformance claim?
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Logos, if any, should be treated as conformance claims and the
> provision of the same information must be required.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> There are currently no plans for a conformance logo. However, if one
> is used, it would constitute a claim and should be accompanied by the
> information described in "Required components of a conformance claim."

We just think people will create their own WCAG 2 conformance logos even if WAI don't provide them. If a logo ("official" or not) says "WCAG 2.0 AA" we understand this as a conformance claim, and we think it would be nice to include an explicit note with a clarification like:

"If a logo is used, it would constitute a claim and should be accompanied by the same information required for any other conformance claim." 

 

We accept the rest of resolutions regarding issues with IDs 2499, 2500, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2507 and 2508.

Thank you for your hard work on this.
Regards,

 CI on behalf of Fundación CTIC.

_____________________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España

teléfono: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 16:10:17 UTC