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