- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:53:54 +0100
- To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
First of two emails containing responses from WCAG folks to our comments in June last year. We should check these and reply. Please send email to the public-i18n-core list if you want to comment, and please send separate emails for each comment, so we don't get our emails in a twist. I'll try to compose some proposed responses, and at the next available telecon we can agree them. Cheers, RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ http://www.w3.org/International/ http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/ -----Original Message----- From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] Sent: 18 May 2007 00:42 To: Richard Ishida Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2) Dear Richard Ishida , Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the interest that you have taken in these guidelines. We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters. This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of your original comment on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/. PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following comments and reply to us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly archived. We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review. Thank you, Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact On behalf of the WCAG Working Group ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 1: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627170742.9C4774F144@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1370) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 1 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: Introduction Comment: The content of the introduction is long and written in a legalistic style that is hard to get through. I think this can putoff, or at least scare, web designers and content authors. I suggest that you provide short summaries of each major section, written in a friendly style, so that people can get thegist of the section. That way the complex normative text can remain, but does not have to be read in detail until needed. Also, use more active phrasing. For example, "The set of technologies that an author assumes are supported and turned on inaccessible user agents is called a baseline." could be written "A baseline is what we call the set of technologies that an author assumes aresupported and turned on in accessible user agents." This is easier to read, makes it easier to find the definition of 'baseline', and gives a quickeridea of the content of the paragraph for those who are skimming text. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have reworked the entire document to make it shorter and easier to read and understand with different levels of expertise. This includes Easier language to understand - Wrote simpler guidelines - Removed as many technical terms (jargon) as possible replacing them with plainer language or, where possible, their definitions - Eliminated several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.) - Removed the term Baseline and replaced it with "web technologies that are accessibility supported" and then defined what it means to be accessibility supported. - Removed the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions that pointed to other definitions) - Tried to word things in manners that are more understandable to different levels of Web expertise - Added short names/handles on each success criterion to make them easier to find and compare etc. - Simplified the conformance Shortening the document overall - Shortened the introduction - Moved much of the discussion out of the guidelines and put it in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document - Shortened the conformance section and moved it after the guidelines - Moved mapping from WCAG 1 to a separate support document (so it can be updated more easily) Creating a Quick Practitioner-oriented Summary / Checklist-like document - Created a Quick Reference document that has just the Guidelines, success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria. We can't always use active phrasing but we have tried to use it wherever we could - much more than in last draft (though success criteria need to be in a true/false format) We have summary information at the front, and each guideline and SC has a link to more explanatory info. See if this version isn't easier to use and understand. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174721.BB9AE4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1371) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 2 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: S/E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: Guideline 3.1 Comment: The term 'primary' is used here in a different way than currently used in i18n documents. We use 'primary language' to meanthe intended audience of the document - as specified in the HTTP header or the meta statement. Our equivalent for your term 'primary language' wouldbe 'default text-processing language', based on the associated explanations. This is what is expressed via the language attribute(s) on the html element. (Note that we are currently considering options for replacing the term 'primary language' with something less ambiguous and moreaccurate.) For a summary of our current usage see http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373 [http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373] We believe that what is necessary for accessibility is identification of the text-processing language - ie. so that text-to-speech systems know what language they are dealing with. We suggest that you say "The natural language or languages of the Web unit..." ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have revised our terminology to "default human language". We have changed the use of this term in both the guidelines and techniques. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627170913.258EC4F144@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1372) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 3 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: Glossary: Natural languages Comment: Nit: "Natural languages" -> "Natural language" ? ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The draft has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173516.043A04F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1375) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 3 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1 Additional techniques Comment: We would be interested in knowing what you will say about use of dc:lang ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have removed this advisory technique, since there is no user agent support for using dc:lang for this purpose. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 5: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173550.D4DC74EED6@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1376) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 4 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.1 Example 1 Comment: "A Web unit produced in Germany includes content in both German and English, but most of the content is in German. The primary natural language is identified as German (de)." If the primary language is expressed using HTTP or meta tags, it is possible that both languages should be identified if this is a document aimed at a bilingual audience. If the primary language is to be expressed in the html element tag, only one language can be chosen. This example is too vague. This goes back to the question of what WCAG means by 'primary language'. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have clarified our use of primary language to be the default human language of the Web page, and we changed SC 3.1.1 to read "The default human language of each Web page within the content can be programmatically determined." We included a reference to Internationalization Best Practices: Specifying Language in XHTML & HTML Content, and added a discussion of multilingual documents to the Intent section. We added "default" to the example to make it clearer why this satisfies the SC. Currently assistive technologies do not support specifying languages in HTTP headers or meta tags, so those techniques are not considered sufficient at this time. HTTP headers and meta tag marking of languages can identify multiple languages, as you point out. Specifying multiple languages in the http header or in meta-data would not specify a default text processing language, so such usage would not satisfy this success criterion. This would be discussed when those techniques are written. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 6: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173627.E53FE4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1377) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 5 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.2 Related resources Comment: The links to Liam Quinn's documentation are not very specific. We are also concerned that the information at the end of these links no longer constitutes best practise - for example, if you look under SPAN there are recommendations to use the tag, rather than , and attribute values are given without quotes. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thank you, we have accepted the comment and have removed the links to Liam Quinn's resourses. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 7: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173707.64EEE4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1378) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 6 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.2 Related resources Comment: There should be a pointer to http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/ [http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/] when that document is published. Note that it is currently a WD, and that the title has recently changed in the editor's copy to "Internationalization Best Practices: Specifying Language in XHTML & HTML Content". ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have added this resource to Success Criterion 3.1.2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 8: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173744.7B0E14EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1379) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 7 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.3 Idioms Comment: The markup for the Dutch example says: Hij ging met de kippen op stok We recommend that you remove the -NL unless you really want to make the point that this is an idiom specific to the Netherlands. In general, language values should be kept as short as possible. On the other hand, since the W3C uses American English spelling, you may want to change the lang attributes in the html element to "en-US" - which will help for spell-checking, and possibly also for voice browsers? ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thanks for catching these. We have made the changes. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 9: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173803.BA38B4F3D6@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1380) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 8 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.3 Idioms Comment: The markup for the Japanese and Dutch examples should include xml:lang attributes as well as the lang attribute, since this is XHTML served as text/html. Please check this for any other phrases in non-English text. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- The draft has been updated as proposed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 10: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173824.EA12C4F0C9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1381) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 9 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 3.1.5 Resources Comment: Since this section says that this guideline can be applied to non-English text, it seems strange that there are no references at all to non-English assessment techniques in the Resources section. Please provide some. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have added references for some non-English assessment techniques to the Resources for Success Criterion 3.1.5. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 11: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627173941.A46EF4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1382) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060427/ Comment 10 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-understanding-wcag2/ Editorial/substantive: Owner: Location in reviewed document: 3.1.3 Idioms Comment: "Example 3: In Japanese, the phrase "ã•ã˜ã‚'投ã'る（ã(c)ã†ã™ã‚‹ã" ã¨ã‚‚ã§ã ãªããªã‚Šã€ã‚ãらã‚ã‚‹ã"ã¨" literally translates into "he threw a spoon". But it means that there was nothing he could do and finally he gave up. " The Japanese original text is confusing, since it contains both "he threw a spoon" *and* the explanation. The latter, that is ã(c)ã†ã™ã‚‹ã" ã¨ã‚‚ã§ã ãªããªã‚Šã€ã‚ãらã‚ã‚‹ã"㨠, should be deleted. (If the non-English text in this comment is mangled by the email process, please follow the above link to the original table of comments.) ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thank you for pointing this out. We've deleted the explanation in parenthesis and have fixed some grammatical errors in the example based on other comments. The example now reads, "Example 3: In Japanese, the phrase "さじを投げる" literally translates into "he throws a spoon". But it means that there is nothing he can do and finally he gives up." ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 12: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174652.F38284EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1383) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 1 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H55, H56 Comment: It is not clear to us why correct support of the 'direction of the text' is an accessibility issue. We recommend that you remove all mention of text direction from this document. This would include F5, H1, H34, H56, H55 (If you disagree with this recommendation, we will come back to you with a substantial number of additional comments based on the content of this document related to text direction, and probably recommend that i18n WG needs to be involved in drafting that text. For now we will hold all such comments until this one is addressed.) ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- Thank you for pointing out that the direction of text is not an accessibility issue. As long as the text itself is presented in reading order, text direction just affects the rendering. We are removing general requirements for indicating the direction of text, but retaining several techniques for SC 1.3.3, to ensure that the reading order of the text is not compromised to achieve the desired visual effect. We would welcome collaboration from i18n on those portions of the document. We made the following modifications to How to Meet SC 3.1.1 - Removed the second paragraph of the Intent Section - Removed Situation A and Situation B , keeping the Situation A sufficient technique as the only sufficient technique for SC 3.1.1. - Removed the section and technique for identifying text direction in HTML - Removed the advisory CSS technique - Removed Example 2 - Removed the common failure We made the following modifications to How to Meet SC 1.3.3 - Removed "Adding the dir attribute to a block level element to change its directionality" from HTML techniques - Removed advisory CSS technique "Specifying the direction of text" - Removed "and the direction is identified as right-to-left" from Example 2 We have also incorporated the following edits: - Deleted technique H1: Adding the dir attribute to a block level element to change its directionality - Deleted technique H55: Using the dir attribute of the html element - deleted F5: Failure of SC 3.1.1 due to using CSS styling to control directionality in XHTML/HTML - removed SC 3.1.2 from referenced SC list for techniques H34, H56 ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 13: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174721.BB9AE4EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1384) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 2 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: S/E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57 Comment: The term 'primary' is used here in a different way than currently used in i18n documents. We use 'primary language' to mean the intended audience of the document - as specified in the HTTP header or the meta statment. Our equivalent for your term 'primary language' (based on the advice given in your techniques) would be 'default text-processing language'. This is what is expressed via the language attribute(s) on the html element. (Note that we are currently considering options for replacing our use of the term 'primary language' with something less ambiguous andmore accurate.) For a summary of our current usage see http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373 [http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373] i18n WG needs to discuss this section with WCAG WG to understand more clearly what the intent is with regard to 'primary' vs.'text-processing' language, and to help formulate clearer guidelines. ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have revised our terminology to "default human language". We have changed the use of this term in both the guidelines and techniques. ---------------------------------------------------------- Comment 14: Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060627174741.951774EEC9@homer.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-1385) Comment from the i18n review of: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/ Comment 3 At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-wcag2-techniques/ Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: H57 Comment: This technique is titled: Using the lang attribute of the html element But it should make reference to the xml:lang attribute too. We suggest: Using language attributes on the html element ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We agree with this suggestion and have changed the title of this technique.
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 19:53:33 UTC