W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Response to response on issue ID 2512

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:24:41 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803211624v27203724sa4496d59f01ebe7f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Patrick H. Lauke
<redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Comment 27: Statement of partial conformance - immediately?
>  Source:
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0061.html
>  (Issue ID: 2512)
>  ----------------------------
>  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.
>  I still feel that "within two business days", though better than
>  "immediately", still may not be realistic in certain situations.
>  Thinking of a site with a very large forum section (e.g.
>  www.sitepoint.com, with nearly quarter a million registered users and
>  hundreds, if not thousands, of threads and messages posted daily), two
>  days may still not be enough time to fix issues. Even more so with sites
>  that allow rich media contributions, where it may be technically harder
>  and more time consuming to fix issues (e.g. provide an accurate text
>  description of a video that was posted - it may involve having to
>  contact the original poster etc).
>  I can see how "reasonable timescale" may be too wide a loophole, but an
>  arbitrary measure of two days may not be the answer either.

If there is so much traffic, then it would seem that if you need more than 2
days, you would end up with even more problems arising over the two days.

That is, on a steady state basis if you cannot do a days worth of fixes in
a day, then you will constantly fall behind (because each day will bring
new ones in such a large site). So two days gives time for 100%
fluctuations, but you pretty much need to be able to keep up or you just
fall farther behind each day.

There are likely to be occasions when there are surges and people can
use reasonable judgment about missing a deadline when in the midst of
an unusual surge.
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 23:25:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:48 UTC