WCAG 2 comments follow-up

Hi group,

Some thoughts on WCAG WG response [1]:

- About comment #1

First of all, a testcase to make clear the success criterion is wrong [2] 

Note that every paragraph in the test case has a width of 80 ems, but no one has 80 characters per line, not even near to them.

Now that the assumption of "80 ems width equals 80 characters per line" clearly seems a little bit optimistic we can start to talk about how to fix this.

- About comment #3

Note that this means that Level ***AA*** conformance (per 1.4.5) [3], not AAA as is stated at the response, could not be achieved if you wanted to preserve look and feel beyond logotypes.

IMO, taking into consideration the limitations of the current "state of the art" for fonts representation on the Web, this is a serious backward step in the effort of accessibility and business needs reconciliation, as almost no business will be able to be Level AA conformant without renouncing to their look & feel guidelines.

I wouldn't go this way if there is a good use case to consider this a serious barrier to be addressed at level AA (I don't think it is if the image has a minimum size, e.g. 200% of the base size, and a proper alternative).

- About comment #4

Apparently the group agrees on the fact that in a case like this it's not the author responsibility, nevertheless, the current wording, especially F10 [4] and G21 [5], say the opposite.

Maybe, as we concluded in a previous teleconference, a reference that points people to some background information for SCs to which user agent functionality plays a role would help.

- About comment #7

According to the group response you're not allowed to use look-alike controls with CSS and scripts until ARIA is done if you want to be Level A conformant. Is this what they really want?

- About comment #9

As I would bet for people using logos, even is none is provided by WAI, it would be nice to include an explicit note with their clarification:

"If a logo is used, it would constitute a claim and should be accompanied by the same information required for a conformance claim." 

- About comment #10

If I understood correctly the WG acknowledge the dependence on accessibility supported web technologies lists, but they hope to compile this information during CR period.

This may need further follow-up, as the absence of such a list will make WCAG 2 unusable, making thus impossible to reach REC state. Still think that the provision of a simple wide "baseline" accessibility supported web technologies list by the WG is the easiest and simplest solution.


[1] - [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Mar/0012.html]
[2] - [http://www.fundacionctic.org/uaw/test-cases/em-width/test.html]
[3] - [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20080310/#visual-audio-contrast-text-presentation]
[4] - [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/F10.html]
[5] - [http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080310/G21.html]

Regards,
 CI.

____________________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España

teléfono: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 17:30:14 UTC