W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2015

Re: ( LC-2879)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:10:07 +0000
Message-Id: <E1Y8bOB-0001lg-46@jessica.w3.org>
To: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Wilco Fiers ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 published on 16 Jan 2014. 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 27 Jan
2015. 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/E1WDBkl-0004JY-VI@shauna.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/


Your comment on G101: Providing the definition of a word or phrase used in
an unusual or r...:
> G101 is not a solution to SC 3.1.3 on it’s own. The how to meet
> document contains a structure based on multiple possible combinations of
> techniques, including G101 to create a few distinct possible solutions
> to SC 3.1.3. This is fairly confusing and almost impossible to test.
> This is the only criterium in How to meet that works by pairing multiple
> techniques in different ways to gain a single result. Reading one of the
> techniques thus doesn’t really tell you how to solve for SC
> 3.1.3. I expect this was done to avoid duplication of content, but I
> think this little bit of duplication can avoid a lot of confusion. And
> it’s not like there is no duplication in other techniques either.
> So instead of building a logical structure in How to meet, move this
> logic into one or multiple techniques.
> This comment is part of the project for the Accessibility Support
> Database
> Proposed Change:
> I think the best solution would be to flatten the How to meet into
> simply having the following 5 techniques, each of which can be used to
> meet the criteria without strange combinations with other techniques.
> - H40: Using definition lists
> - H60: Using the link element to link to a glossary
> - H54: Using the dfn element to identify the defining instance of a
> word
> - G62: Providing a glossary 
> - G70: Providing a function to search an online dictionary
> All the things the other criteria require is moved into these
> techniques, such as that with a definition list you should also link the
> definition to the definition list, and that if the same phrase is used
> differently on the same page it is insufficient to only link the first
> occurrence. This could perhaps also be a failure.

Working Group Resolution (LC-2879):
Thank you for raising this issue. To make it easier for developers, we have
added a link to the appropriate section of Understanding WCAG 2.0 in the
applicability section of techniques that must be combined with another
technique. For example, the applicability section of G101 contains:

This technique must be combined with other techniques to meet this success
criterion. See <a
Understanding SC 3.1.3> for more details.

This change is implemented in the working branch of the WCAG documents in
GitHub and will be published as part of the next document update.

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:10:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:18 UTC