- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:07:20 -0500
- To: akirkpat@adobe.com
- CC: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not
Agree -- EOWG was fine with however you decided to address this.
~Shawn for EOWG
On 8/20/2013 1:40 PM, akirkpat@adobe.com wrote:
> Dear Shawn Henry ,
>
> The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
> comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Public Review Draft) published on 11 Jul 2013.
> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send us
> comments!
>
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 25 August
> 2013. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
> consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
> formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
> transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
> Track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
> Michael Cooper
> W3C Staff Contact
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/5209AA25.4010403@w3.org
> 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/
>
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on :
>> Dear WCAG WG,
>>
>> EOWG considered the placement of the Note that starts out "Note 1: W3C
>> cautions against requiring..." in Understanding Techniques for WCAG
>> Success Criteria
>>
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html>
>> There were conflicting perspectives, and no one felt strongly enough to
>> try to convince others in EOWG to come up with a consensus position. We
>> therefore submit the perspectives below for your consideration.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Shawn for EOWG
>>
>>
>> <p><a
>>
> href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html">Understanding
>> Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria</a> has a note that starts out:
>> "Note 1: W3C cautions against requiring..."
>> It's an important point and we want to make sure people read it.
>> Currently it is in the <a
>>
> href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-informative-head">Techniques
>> are Informative</a> section. Some think it would be better in the <a
>>
> href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-sufficient-head">Sufficient
>> Techniques</a> section (right before the heading "Numbered Lists,
>> "AND""). Thoughts? </p>
>> <ul>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I'm one who thinks it wouod be better
>> in the Sufficient Techniques section - they're what we're referring to
>> <span style="color:#808080;">{Andrew, 2/Aug}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I agree with Andrew, it would be easier
>> to read in the "suffiscient techniques" section. <span
>> style="color:#808080;">{Sylvie}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that it belongs in the
>> "Techniques are Informative" section because it's
>> <strong>broadly about not requiring the Techniques</strong>, rather than
>> specifically about the sufficient techniques. (although I'm not set on
>> this) <span style="color:#808080;">{Shawn}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that it would sit better under
>> the Sufficient Techniques section and most naturally just before the
>> para starting "There may be other ways ..." and without being
>> marked as a note. <span style="color:#808080;">{Bim, Aug 2}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I agree with Shawn, but it may be
>> useful to add a reminder on Sufficient Techniques section.<span
>> style="color:#808080;">{Emmanuelle}</span> <br />
>> The Sufficient Techniques section currently has "(See also
>> Techniques are Informative above.)" so it generally points to that
>> section, though not specifically to that note.</li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I also agree that the information would
>> be best if it was in the "Sufficient Techniques" section. Can
>> we duplicate the info? I believe it wouldn't hurt to also mention it in
>> the "Techniques are informative" section. But my first choice
>> would be "Sufficient Techniques". <span
>> style="color:#808080;">{dboudreau, Aug4th.}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I feel that for those unitiated into
>> the special language of standards it will be a somewhat confusing and
>> meaningless sentence. If it is intended for ordinary people it would be
>> nice to have an ordinary language version so that they can truly
>> understand the balance between normative and informative. Perhaps there
>> could be a link to a plain text easy to understand version?<span
>> style="color:#808080;">{Suzette 5th August}</span></li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">I think the Notes break the flow but I
>> do think a point made in both sections would carry the message forward.
>> As such, a suggestion follows:<span style="color:#808080;">{Vicki,
>> August 9}</span>
>> <p><strong>Reminder: </strong></p>
>> <ul>
>> <li>Sufficient techniques are provided as guidance. A
>> frequent misunderstanding is that they should be used for meeting
>> conformance. The only thing that should be required is meeting the WCAG
>> 2.0 success criteria and not the techniques which are informative.
>> There can be <a
>> href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#techsnot">negative
>> consequences of allowing only W3C's published techniques to be used for
>> conformance to WCAG 2.0</a>.</li>
>> <li>Techniques for WCAG 2.0 use the words "must" and
>> "should" only to clarify guidance within the techniques, not
>> to convey requirements for WCAG</li>
>> </ul>
>> </li>
>> <li style="margin-top: 1em;">From <a
>>
> href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2013JulSep/0021.html">
>> EOWG e-mail</a>:
>> <ul>
>> <li> It is ok where it is but should be worded as "It is
>> important to note that ...", instead of just "Note:".
>> Notes like those are generally considered supplementary / advisory info
>> and can be missed easily. Alternatively it should be moved up in that
>> section nearer to the beginning and not be called a "Note".
>> <span style="color:#808080;">{Sailesh}</span> </li>
>> <li> I agree with Sailesh in that it could stay where it is
>> but needs to stand out more. If it is moved to the sufficient techniques
>> section, it should still be made to stand out. I think the idea that W3C
>> cautions against something is a pretty strong statement and it is
>> important that it not be missed. Perhaps that sentence or the words
>> "cautions against" should be marked up in strong. <span
>> style="color:#808080;">{Catherine}</span> </li>
>> <li> I agree with Andrew that the "Techniques are
>> Informative" section refers to "Sufficient Techniques."
>> <br/>
>> Advisory Techniques and Failures are by nature not
>> required. I assume that using a separate section is to emphasize the
>> notes, but on first reading I found the section heading a little
>> confusing, especially as it's followed by so many other headings, all
>> with the word "Techniques." It rather upsets the flow of ideas
>> to have a disclaimer as the first section. <br />
>> I think it would be more coherent to make it a subsection of
>> "Sufficient Techniques." <span
>> style="color:#808080;">{Alan}</span> </li>
>> <li> "Alternatively it should be moved up in that section
>> nearer to the beginning and not be called a "Note"." I
>> agree. <span style="color:#808080;">{Kathleen}</span> </li>
>> </ul>
>> </li>
>> </ul>
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2808):
> Thank you to the EO committee for discussing it. Because there is no
> consensus in the EO we have considered each comment on its own merit. The
> section has a heading "Techniques are Informative, and its placement is
> prominent. The note is primarily for policy makers, and law makers rather
> and as such needs to be precise. We feel it is as simple as possible, while
> maintaining accuracy.
>
> "Techniques are informative—that means they are not required. The basis
> for determining conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the success criteria from the
> WCAG 2.0 standard—not the techniques."
>
> If EO returns with a consensus we would be glad to reconsider, but as such
> we think it is the best it can be, without causing the techniques
> themselves to be called into question.
>
> ----
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 22:07:36 UTC