W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Comments on Understanding WCAG 2.0 Draft Updates dated July 11, 2013 ( LC-2784 LC-2785)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 14:46:55 +0000
Message-Id: <E1VNkw3-0002PB-R7@jessica.w3.org>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Jonathan Avila ,

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

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 2 Oct
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


For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/a996e31c01618f750561771f1bbc8236@mail.gmail.com
 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130711/


Your comment on :
> *Focus Visible*: Understanding SC 2.4.7
> [Begin add]
> If there is only one keyboard actionable control on the screen, the
> success
> criterion would be met because the visual design presents only one
> keyboard
> actionable item.
> [End add]
> Comment: If there is no visible focus on the page, how would someone
> know
> that only one item was actionable?  If the only actionable item was a
> custom edit field, how would a person properly edit text if there was
> no
> blinking caret?  Adding this exception creates a loop hole that allows
> for
> inaccessible content.   Please do not add this item.

Working Group Resolution (LC-2784):
Thanks for your comment. We agree. 

We have updated the second paragraph of the Intent, the entirely of the
paragraph will now read:

[DONE] The purpose of this success criterion is to help a person know which
element has the keyboard focus. 


Your comment on :
> *Labels or Instructions*:
> Understanding SC 3.3.2
> [begin add]
> *Note: *If labels are provided, the label relationship to the object
> labeled must be programmatically determined or described in text per
> *Understanding
> Success Criterion 1.3.1 Info and
> *.
> [end add]
> Comment: This addition implies that the label must be programmatically
> associated when a label is used.  It is possible that a visual label
> might
> be present in addition to a title attribute or use of aria-label thus
> removing the need for an explicitly associated label.  The problematic
> text
> “the label relationship to the object labeled must be
> programmatically
> determined” should be changed to say “a label with the same text
> must be
> programmatically determinable”.

Working Group Resolution (LC-2785):
Thank you for the comment.  We recognize the issue you are referring to and
will modify the note as follows:

Change to:
When labels are provided for input objects, the input object's relationship
to the label (or to redundant text serving as the label) must be
programmatically determinable or available in text per Understanding SC

Received on Sunday, 22 September 2013 14:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:59 UTC