- From: Maria Putzhuber <maria.putzhuber@chello.at>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:17:16 +0200
- CC: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
dear hardworking wcag 2.0 working group, iīd like to thank you for your detailed reply to all comments. i accept your solutions. regarding GL 1.2 - i still think itīs unrealistic, but of course: content that claims to be accessible has to be accessible. regarding Issue ID 2489: i donīt have any suggestions to replace the term synchronized media. the term multimedia was sufficient for me but... this has been discussed already. i feel my english is not good enough to offer perfect explanations for difficult terms. iīm looking forward to testing my future projects with wcag 2.0. kind regards maria putzhuber -- Mag. Maria Putzhuber Barrierefreies Webdesign und Accessibility Consulting Meiselstraße 35/15 1150 Wien Bürogemeinschaft WIENFLUSS Proschkogasse 1/5 1060 Wien Mobil:0699 / 1 92 38 601 Mail: mp@putzhuber.net Web: http://www.putzhuber.net Loretta Guarino Reid schrieb: > Dear Maria Putzhuber, > > 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: SC 1.2.1 not realistic > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0035.html > (Issue ID: 2487) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > I know, captions are necessary to guarantee accessibility of videos > including sound. but captioning seems to be an unrealistic challenge > in daily business, where quick output is demanded. extra software, > knowledge and time are needed. > > we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media > content accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance of > media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough > for some media content. > > media content could also be an interesting, but not essential > addition, and not an alternative to text. > > Proposed Change: > some addition to phrase: except if the synchronized media is an > alternative to text and is clearly labeled as such, to make an > exemption for less important, additional media content. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > In a modern competitive business, it is unclear why any audio video > material would be created that was unimportant. Audiovisual content > costs time and money to create, even if relatively informal. If it is > important enough to do for those that can hear, it should be important > enough for those that cannot. > > If materials do not meet these guidelines, then they would not be accessible. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 2: SC 1.2.2 not realistic > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0036.html > (Issue ID: 2488) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > we still might ask, if it is really necessary to make all new media > content fully accessible. some measurement or labeling of importance > of media content might be an idea. a text summary might just be enough > for some media content. > > Proposed Change: > include excemption like in sc 1.2.1 > > a text summary might be enough for some media content. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > As per your comment on captions, > - if content is created, it is likely important enough that all should see it. > - these guidelines do not require accessibility, just require that > things be true if conformance to this guideline is to be used/claimed. > - If cited in regulations, then exceptions for what needs to be > covered (what needs to be accessible) are usually created. > > In this particular example, you ask for text to be sufficient. The > current language does allow that. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 3: GL 1.2 - terminology not clear > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0037.html > (Issue ID: 2489) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > Maybe itīs a translation problem, but I feel the explanations for > synchronized media, live and prerecorded are not entirely clear. > synchronized media is an uncommon term and difficult to translate. > > Proposed Change: > ? > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Media are changing and the language in WCAG 2.0 needed to change to > keep up. It does make it somewhat more complicated, but that is a > reflection of the way the technologies more than the terminology which > must follow the technology. > > We spent quite a bit of time trying to make this as simple and > understandable as possible and still be accurate. If you have > suggestions, we are interested in hearing them. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 4: GL 1.2 exceptions needed > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0038.html > (Issue ID: 2490) > Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > imho exceptions regarding the importance of media content are needed > for all 1.2 success criteria. > > i donīt know any examples of audio description in online videos. > > Proposed Change: > include exceptions in all sc to 1.2 > > provide best practice examples in understanding documents > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We already have exceptions for non-text content that covers anything > that is not information (e.g. pure decoration). The working group > feels that any further limitations based on "importance" would be > untestable and potentially a slippery slope. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 5: 1.4.3 - 5:1 too high > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0039.html > (Issue ID: 2491) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > contrast ratio of 5:1 is quite challenging for designers, you canīt > change the corporate identity of your clients for instance... > > contrast control should be a browser feature, easier to use and find > than it is now. > > regarding: reference in understanding wcag doc to typical visual > acuity of elders at roughly age 80: those elders might need some > assistive technology. > > as the life expectancy in most countries of the world is still below > 80, designers might get the impression they have to fulfill the needs > of users, that are on the average dead already. > > Proposed Change: > contrast ratio of at least 4:1 > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > We reviewed a variety of popular Web sites and we only found a few > places on a couple of pages where 5:1 was not met. Also note that > logos are already excepted. There is no need to worry about contrast > on logos, logotypes, brandnames etc. when conforming (but it is nice > of course if people create logos that would pass). > > Regarding the 80 year old, that is just a side note. There are many > people of all ages that have low vision. This was just to note that > we all may need this feature if we live long enough. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 6: SC 1.4.4 - 200% is too high > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0040.html > (Issue ID: 2492) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > soon all common modern browsers will provide a zoom function. > > 200% of 12pt - 16px - 1em is 32px. not many layouts online will stand > 200% text resizing. > > the most common browser internet explorer does not even allow text > resizing of 200%, as far as i know the two possible steps resize to > 150%?? > > Proposed Change: > allow text resizing for at least two text resizing steps of common browsers > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > The 200% figure was chosen because it is the smallest magnification > supported by older screen magnifiers. Zoom would meet this > specification if implemented well Zoom, unlike text scaling, scales > the page uniformly, so it preserves the layout of the page. > > If some browsers do not zoom to 200 % that is not the fault or problem > of the author. Users would need to secure a browser that met their > zoom needs. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 7: SC 2.2.2 - how to handle advertisements > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0041.html > (Issue ID: 2493) > Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > does the criteria apply to adverts as well? or will adverts blocker be > seen as a sufficient provision to hide blinking external content? > > Proposed Change: > mention advertisements in understanding doc. > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > WCAG 2.0 conformance is based on full pages, so advertisements on > pages for which a claim is made would always be included. > Advertisement blockers would not be sufficient because advertisements > are not purely decorative. > > We have added a link to the definition of "pure decoration" to 2.2.2 > and have inserted some language related to advertisements under > "Statement of Partial Conformance." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 8: SC 2.4.8 AA instead of AAA > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0042.html > (Issue ID: 2494) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > important for general orientation. > > some of the sufficient techniques are quite common and easy to achieve. > > if not all of the sufficient techniques are necessary, it could be a > AA level sc. > > Proposed Change: > level aa with some exceptions (small sites...) > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Only one of the sufficient techniques must be satisfied to meet any > success criterion, so it is not necessary to satisfy all of the > sufficient techniques. > > We agree that many of these are easy. A test for Levels A and AA, > though, is whether it can be applied to all types of sites and types > of content. > > There is a wide variety of content on the Web. Some are navigation > pages and breadcrumbs are common there. Other content is copies of > documents - and breadcrumbs cannot be added to these. In fact, many > documents cannot be altered to include position information. Also, > there are many paths that may be taken to any point. If the person > lands on a page via search, it is not clear how one would say where > they were in the site if there were many paths to this page. > > Since this cannot be applied to all pages, it is at level AAA. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 9: SC 2.4.10 AA instead of AAA > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0043.html > (Issue ID: 2495) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > important for general orientation and usability for all user groups. > > could be AA > > Proposed Change: > change to AA > > --------------------------------------------- > 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 10: non w3c techiques have to be named with clear examples > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0044.html > (Issue ID: 2496) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Original Comment: > ---------------------------- > > it is a bit frustrating, that the understanding documents donīt give > any advice where it is needed the most. > > the wai doesnīt have to provide all the techniques, but common non w3c > formats have to be mentioned at least. > > we need clear statements and examples, like: > > PDF has to be tagged. > for Level A this is probably too ambitious, as long as the tagging > software isnīt better. > > so a clear statement of the wai is needed, if pdf has to fulfill 1.3.1 or not. > > Flash has to fullfill the requirements of several sc .... > > Proposed Change: > giving more examples of non w3c formats > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > > Although the requirements for WCAG are to write guidelines that could > be applied to all web technologies, the scope of work for the Working > Group only includes writing up techniques for W3C Recommendations > (such as XHTML, SMIL, SVG, and MathML) as well as ECMAScript. > > However, we recognize the need by authors to find information about > techniques for other technologies, too. There are on-going discussions > within WAI and W3C to try to find mechanisms to assist authors in > finding other techniques as well. > >
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 20:18:04 UTC