- From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:31:09 +0200
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: "Ram?n Corominas" <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Gregg i would like to suggest to include also into the document relevant links to WAI/WCAG 2.0 for someone that would like to receive more detailed info tlike the http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html#suff-adv-techs regards kostas > > > On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:53 AM, Ram?n Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es> > wrote: > >> Some comments about the document: >> >> #1. SUFFICIENT: "Sufficient techniques" are only "sufficient" to meet a >> Success Criterion if the technique is accessibility supported. > GV: added. >> There are many "sufficient" techniques that do not guarantee >> accessibility if you consider MacOS or Linux platforms (for example, >> most of the Flash or PDF techniques). This must be clarified. >> >> #2. FAILURES: Although, technically speaking, the failures mean direct >> violations of the Success Criteria, this does not necessarily mean a >> failure of WCAG 2.0 Conformance, since they may affect content that is >> not relied upon. In general, any inaccessible content that meets >> Conformance Requirement #5 may fail the SC, but still allowing >> Conformance. For example, a totally inaccessible PDF document that is >> just a "print version" of a completely accessible HTML document. > GV: GOOD CATCH. FIxed. > >> >> #3. Accessibility: Google Docs is not only inaccessible to blind users, >> the document is also failing SC 1.4.4 Resize Text (I have low vision and >> increasing the text size produces overlaps and the content loss). > GV: which browser are you using. I can zoom and enlarge text (wrapping > ) with out any problem. Also, my colleagues who are blind tested it > and said it worked for them. Hmmm. Do you have another to suggest > that is better? > > thanks > > > > >> >> >> Regards, >> Ram?n. >> >> Gregg wrote: >> >>>> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques >>>> and failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in >>>> Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this >>>> resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources. >>> Fixed See new draft >>> http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote >>>> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures >>>> document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility >>>> for other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate >>>> myth that only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures. >>> Fixed >>>> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather >>>> than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of >>>> Techniques and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0 >>>> Techniques and Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between >>>> explaining what techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential >>>> misuse due to misunderstanding of their intended purpose. >>> Yes it is. And after reading it over again (and making edits to >>> address your comments ) it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it >>> should be. (not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather >>> than instructing. "The Role of...." is all in the Understanding >>> document. We were asked for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR >>> that could be used by people who misunderstood the Role. I am >>> concerned that adding more words -- or turning this into a general >>> discussion -- would defeat what we were asked for. That being said - I >>> have tried to add more text to the document to help with your comments >>> above. Take a look. >> > >
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 07:31:35 UTC