W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2009

Your Posts to the public list

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:09:56 -0500
Message-Id: <5BBD2DA6-7925-4EEA-9E56-73929390253A@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Dear Ryan

We have received a number of comments from you to the Public Comments  
list.

Some of the comments you sent in are related to comments on the  
documents.   These we are processing and will send comments to back to  
you when we have time to review and respond to them (5 of them are  
done and are below.  The other 2 will follow when we get to them in  
queue).

Two other comments you sent did not comment on the guidelines but were  
instead requests to comment on or advise you on aspects of pages you  
are writing.  We are not able to respond to these types of inquiries.

The WCAG Public Comments List is for public comments on the WCAG  
documents. Please use this public comment list only to submit errors,  
omissions, issues, or needed clarifications to the documents.  
Suggestions for new techniques should be submitted using the  
Techniques for WCAG 2.0 submission form.

Please note that the public list should not be used to ask questions  
about particular websites or implementation issues. We just don't have  
the ability to respond to these questions.  Questions about how to  
apply WCAG to a particular page or site should be sent
        a) to one of the many consultants working in the area,
        b) to the WAI Interest Group (IG) mailing list (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org 
),
    or c) to one of the many other mailing lists and forums that focus  
on Web accessibility.

Some general comments that may be helpful to you.

1) NOTHING is required that is not specifically required in the WCAG  
2.0 Guidelines.

	- and in the WCAG 2.0 guidelines - the ONLY things required are the  
SUCCESS CRITERIA and the Conformance Requirements that you can find in  
the CONFORMANCE section of WCAG 2.0

2) TECHNIQUES  are NEVER required.      They as simply options that  
you may or may not use to meet the Success criterion in WCAG 2.0

3) Some techniques will conflict with other techniques.  Since neither  
is required this is not a problem.  If two techniques conflict - then  
don't use both.

4) Read the Understanding document carefully to understand the Success  
Criteria.

Thank you for your comments.  We will be responding to the ones that  
are suggesting changes to our documents (edits, errors or  
omissions).   Below are the items that do NOT fall in this category  
and that we are not in a position to address.

Thank You

Gregg and Loretta



YOUR COMMENTS ARE ALL LISTED BELOW  GROUPED INTO THREE CATEGORIES



1) WCAG Questions - Done
These are questions about the WCAG documents that we have answers for.  
And they are provided with each item.  In general however - questions  
are put in queue and will take some time to get to.  (see #3 below)


2) WCAG Questions -  Still in Queue
These are question about the WCAG documents that are in queue for  
discussion by the Working Group.    We will work on them in turn as we  
get to them.  Thank you for your comments.   We will let you know how  
they come out when they are processed.  It may take some time  
depending on other work items.
If you need quicker responses in order to do your work - please check  
with a consultant. They can probably help you to understand the  
guidelines while we work on making the language more understandable in  
our formal docs to be released later this year.

3) Consultant Questions
  These are questions that should be addressed to consultants.  They  
do not fall into the category of things we need to change in the  
documents.



=====================
YOUR COMMENTS
=====================

=============================================================
1) WCAG Questions - Done
These are questions about the WCAG documents that we have answers for.  
And they are provided with each item.  In general however - questions  
are put in queue and will take some time to get to.  (see #3 below)


From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 17, 2009 12:44:00 AM CDT
  Subject: Tables for Layout vs. Meaningful Sequence


  I have tried to make a change to my site in order to comply with  
Meaningful Sequence.
This time it is about "layout tables", not data tables. I have  
troubleshooted by visiting other sites that have layout tables.
The rule at WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G57 
  is to require that the layout table does not require the style sheet.
Not possible.

I tested every site I vistied that contained layout tables, and  
removed their table, td, and tr tag from their style sheet to  
toubleshoot it, and it gave me the same result.
The table was never linearized.

Why adopt a rule to create CSS for other purposes when this will  
interfer with it?

WG Response:
Techniques are not rules. The only rules are in the WCAG Document.  
Everything else is an option.

=====================
From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 14, 2009 1:04:59 AM CDT
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: G148 could contradict Parsing 4.1.1



I have noticed that at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/, G148  
requires me to not have the background specified. However, when I use  
4.1.1 (Parsing) to validate my stylesheet, it requires background. I  
am using #FFFFFF when there is no background.

Can this be a conflict with G148 and parsing?

I am also using the CSS Validator at HTMLHELP.COM.

The validator passes, but since G148 requires not to have a  
background, one rule needs to be revised, or dropped.

Please clarify for no background when parsing already passed with  
#FFFFFF.

WG  Response: G148 is only one way to meet the Success Criteria… you  
can choose another if you like or it causes problems for you. You do  
not have to do it.


=====================================

On Jul 12, 2009, at 11:47 PM, Ryan White wrote:

I have a link that points to a different site. The site indicates the  
link is broken/dead. I visited their homepage, and did a search on the  
information I needed. The only logical site from their homepage was  
the dead link. Does 2.4.4 require me to remove the link until the site  
is repaired or will it pass?

Response:
the purpose of the link is clear -- (as per 2.4.4) being broken does  
not cause 2.4.4 to fail - though a link that is broken long term is  
bad practice.   A broken link is inaccessible to everyone, not only  
people with disabilities.


---------------------------------

From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 28, 2009 7:24:37 PM CDT
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Cc: lorettaguarino@google.com
Subject: A: focus is contraditing at 3.2.1 and 2.4.7

I just noticed that A: focus has a different standard that negates  
Focus Visible and On Focus. Since these are both level A issues, it  
will be impossible to pass accessibility. One can only choose between  
the two items, and since it is out of their control must cliam partial  
conformance.

Please fix these standards.

Response:
Techniques are not required.   The SC themselves do not conflict.      
Choose techniques that do not conflict for your application.


============================
On Jul 12, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Ryan White wrote:


If there is text embedded inside an image, does that change the  
accessibility of the alt tag.

RESPONSE:  Depending on the type of text and whether it is incidental  
or not, it may or may not need to be in the alt tag. This is covered  
in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document.

=============================================================
2) WCAG Questions -  Still in Queue
These are question about the WCAG documents that are in queue for  
discussion by the Working Group.    We will work on them in turn as we  
get to them.  Thank you for your comments.   We will let you know how  
they come out when they are processed.  It may take some time  
depending on other work items.
If you need quicker responses in order to do your work - please check  
with a consultant. They can probably help you to understand the  
guidelines while we work on making the language more understandable in  
our formal docs to be released later this year.


On Jul 12, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Ryan White wrote:


In Info and Relationships, an unordered list is allowed, however, in  
Meaningful Sequence it quotes

"A sequence is meaningful if the order of content in the sequence  
cannot be changed without affecting its meaning. For example, if a  
page contains two independent articles, the relative order of the  
articles may not affect their meaning, as long as they are not  
interleaved. In such a situation, the articles themselves may have  
meaningful sequence, but the container that contains the articles may  
not have a meaningful sequence.

The semantics of some elements define whether or not their content is  
a meaningful sequence. For instance, in HTML, text is always a  
meaningful sequence. Tables and "ordered lists" are meaningful  
sequences, but unordered lists are not."

Why do they contradict each other?

I need to use un-ordered lists with bullets. How can I pass  
Meaningful  Sequence?

Quick feedback:  They don't contradict each other.  We are working on  
wording to make this clearer.  We will respond later on this one.

===========

From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 15, 2009 10:14:23 AM CDT
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: Resize Text and Visual Presentation

I tried to check if my document can be resized up to 200%. I can be  
done in Firefox 3.0.10, and in Internet Explorer 7, but fails in  
Internet Explorer 8 and the most recent version of Firefox.

Does my document pass or fail the 200% increase requirement which is  
required for Resize Text and Visual Presentation?

Note: I have heard online testimony that there are some bugs in the  
most recent version of Internet Explorer, and Firefox which are  
causing accessibility problems.



=============================================================
3) Consultant Questions
  These are questions that should be addressed to consultants.  They  
do not fall into the category of things we need to change in the  
documents.


=============

From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 31, 2009 8:48:59 AM CDT
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: Consistent ID vs Navigation

I am working Consistent ID vs. Navigation.

Take a look at the menus at http://www.cssportal.com/generators/ 
menu.htm. If all pages on the server had the same template at the top  
of the page, and theree was only one template, is that an example of  
Cosistent ID or Navigation?

In addition, my template has a logo to the left of the first link. The  
logo has the same alt tag for all pages before the first link.




==================


From: Ryan White <rwhitedei@yahoo.com>
Date: July 14, 2009 1:24:48 AM CDT
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: 2.4.4 Text Resizing

I have noticed that there are a few government agencies that have  
adopted a script enlargment tag. Examples are at the top right corner  
of http://www.utah.gov/index.html,http://www.alabama.gov/portal/index.jsp 
, and http://www.colorado.gov/. If I implement this, how does it  
effect 2.4.4?
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 14:10:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:12 UTC