Baseline proposals

Hi all,

I have made some proposal on baseline.  A majority of the open issues are document-related--can be close upon publication of better baseline explanation. 

*b=may have impact to baseline

*c=may have impact to conformance

*d=should be consider by the team tasked to draft understanding baseline document

Blank=action pending or not related to baseline

 

466 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=466>  -Proposal accepted, but put on hold pending potential changes in baseline, 4.2.1, or 4.2.3.

 

513 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=513>  -Proposal approved per May 18th WCAG WG meeting.  But the working group note says do not accept.  This needs to be reconciled.

 

530 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=530> *d -Comment claims baseline does not assure accessible outcome.  It can be addressed via better baseline document.  Baseline document team should review this comment.

 

531 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=531>  -Action item pending from David, Michael, Bruce, Loretta, and Cynthia

 

532 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=532>  -Editorial update pending.

 

533 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=533>  -ACTION: David, Michael, Bruce, Loretta, Cynthia to look at alternate formations for level 3 conformance due close of comments.

 

540 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=540> *b -This is more about 3.1.5 with possibility of integrating audience education level into baseline.  But it should not be a baseline issue unless baseline is very substantially changed.  Propose to close and reject with claim that baseline is only about technology.  But this is a team B issue.

 

565 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=565> *b -Commenter suggests making deprecated features that are not accessible failures.  It is baseline-related.  But it can be better addressed via specific failure conditions.  It is voted by WG to put on hold.

 

807 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=807> *d -Commenter requests better explanation of baseline.  It can be addressed via better baseline document.  Baseline document team should review this comment.

 

588 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=588> *d -commenter claims baseline is misleading.  It can be addressed via better baseline document.  Baseline document team should review this comment.

 

590 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=590>  -This comment is not related to baseline.  Commenter wants WCAG 2 be easier to read and use.

 

638 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=638> *c -This comments wants to make sure that content can be accessed even if they do not have the user agent that works with the technology.  That is more about conformance.  It should not have impact on baseline language.

 

643 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=643> *d -Gez has the action item to act upon this.  It can be addressed via better baseline document.  Baseline document team should review this comment.

 

646 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=646> *c -Commenter demands W3C to specify minimal baseline technologies.  Also has some misunderstanding of proper baseline.  This should be a conformance issue.  It can be addressed via better baseline document.  Baseline document team should review this comment.

 

648 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=648> *c -Commenter demands valid code and more easily measurable expectation (specific baseline technologies).  No new evidence. 

 

649 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=649> *d*c -This should be two issues.  On one hand, the commenter does not understand baseline.  Second, the comment takes issue with scoping, which is more of a conformance issue.

 

652 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=652> *d*c -This should be three issues, not one.  First, commenter objects to baseline because he thinks baseline allows web sites to pass conformance by omitting technologies from the baseline.  This is a clear misunderstanding in his part.  Second, he complains about WCAG's emphasize on visual impairment.  Third, he complains about level 3 compliance requirement of half of applicable success criteria.

 

734 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=734>  -This is not about baseline.  Michael has action item.

 

737 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=737> *d -This is a complaint per Joe Clark blog.  But the commenter has not read WCAG 2.0, at lease not fully.  Baseline is one of many complaints.  He complains that baseline is not useful unless the technology is inherently accessible.  An understanding baseline doc should be sent his way when available, along with the quick reference.

 

750 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=750>  -This is a clarification of 4.2.2.  Response is ready and on hold.

 

751 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=751> *b*c -This is a mostly editorial issue on baseline and conformance.  

 

756 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=756>  -This is an editorial on definition.  Not a baseline issue.

 

809 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=809>  -This is about the same "use technologies according to spec" debate.  Not a baseline issue.

 

812 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=812> *c -This commenter proposes integrate baseline into L1, L2 definition.  "This will mean that SC at L1 exploit all accessibility features available in the baseline technology and this provides the necessary context." Obviously, one cannot always exploit ALL accessibility features.  It depends on how the content is applied to the technologies.  There can certainly be accessibility that goes above and beyond WCAG sc.  In any case, this is a conformance issue.

 

861 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=861> *b -Commenter claims that technology baseline is not enough to guarantee access due to language and other missing info.  He also claims that it is impossible to claim people with a specific disability, for example blind people, can fully access a site.  There will never be such a guarantee.  Thus, propose to reject and close.

 

864 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=864> *c -This issue is not properly classified.  It is not about baseline.  It is more about conformance and general WCAG philosophy.

 

878 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=878>  *b -This is an issue to be broken out into multiple issues.  1411 is the one related to baseline.  Commenter suggests that jpeg is not a testable baseline.

 

880 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=880> *c -This is a conformance issue.  No impact on baseline.

 

888 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=888> *c -This is a purely conformance issue.  It is about 50% sc to meet level 3.

 

889 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=889> *d -Commenter wants clear explanation of baseline to avoid misuse.  Propose to close upon publication of better baseline document.

 

902 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=902> *b*d -The commenter points out that we should a have clearer line of thinking about user agent and baseline.  There needs to be a clean decision if the author is responsible for determining if an "accessible user agent" exists for the baseline content or just to fulfill the sc of the baseline and not worry about user agent(s), particularly AT.   Current language is unclear.  Propose to remove the term "accessible user agent".  It is a loaded term.

 

908 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=908> *d -Commenter needs help defining baseline.  He asks if defining a specific browser for baseline is adequate.  Propose to answer with, "Browsers or user agents are not proper elements in the baseline statement." But we should hold until better baseline documentation is available.

 

951 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=951> *d -Commenter claims baseline concept is hard to understand.  Issue can be closed upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

953 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=953> *d -Commenter does not understand baseline.  This is partly addressed via quick reference.  Issue can be closed upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

968 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=968>  -This is not about baseline.

 

997 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=997> *d -Commenter claims better baseline document is need to avoid misuse.  Issue can be closed upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

998 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=998> *b -Commenter suggest that W3C should set a "common" baseline applicable to most web sites.  The quick reference partly addressed this issue.  Propose to close with partial accept upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

1007 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1007> *d -This is a comment by EOWG for better baseline document.  Issue can be closed upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

1010 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1010>  -This is a demand to simplify the introduction with less jargon.  It is not particularly related to baseline.

 

1014 <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1014> *d -This is a comment by EOWG for better baseline document. Issue can be closed upon publication of improved baseline document.

 

1311 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1311> *b*c -This comment is lengthy and general in nature.  Specific to baseline, a better baseline document and suggestion on baseline technology should cover all its concerns.  There are other subject matters discussed in this comment.

 

1023 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1023> *c -This is about 50% AAA conformance.  It is not a baseline issue.

 

1027 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1027> *c -Commenter think it is possible to make all content accessible to all people at all time.  There is a fundamental difference between WCAG WG and commenter.  Propose to reject.

 

1028 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1028> *d -Commenter does not understand baseline.  Propose to reject upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1029 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1029> *d -This is a longer version of 1028.  Commenter does not understand baseline.  Propose to reject upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1030 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1030> *d -Commenter wants definition of baseline.  It can be closed upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1031 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1031> *d -Commenter believes example 1 of "understanding baseline" is a conspiracy to support big corporation taking over the web.  Propose to reject upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1032 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1032> *b*d -This is related to 902.  Solving 902 and a better baseline document would take care of this issue.

 

1033 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1033> *b -This is an objection to the term "extremely limited" that describe the first example of baseline.  This is not a substantive comment.  Propose to reject.  

 

1034 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1034> *b*d -This commenter thinks it is wrong that people who do not want to or cannot use all of baseline technology due to their disabilities be excluded.  By definition, all technologies are as accessible as the collective sc suggest at the corresponding compliance level.  People who don't want to or cannot use the technologies are indeed excluded, but not because of the disabilities covered by the success criteria.  The commenter also thinks that baseline should not exist because some screen reader may not work with javascript.  It is not the responsibility of web developer to make sure that their content would work with outdated assistive technologies.  Propose to reject upon publication of baseline document.

 

1035 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1035> *d -"[the] theory of baseline will not stop a developer choosing an inappropriate and inaccessible baseline." Propose to reject with comment that better baseline explanation would minimize these sort of mistake.  However, the developers should take responsibility for their own mistake as with all other things.  Rejection can be issue upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1037 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1037> *d -Commenter wants a "guide to policy makers" and admit that she does not understand baseline.  It is not the responsibility of the WG to make such guide.  Propose to reject upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1038 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1038> *c -This is a conformance issue.

 

1039 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1039>  -This is a minor editorial.  Ben has action item.

 

1041 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1041> *d -This is in addition to 1037, which asks for a "guide to policy makers".  On top of it, propose to have W3C suggestion for baseline technology.  Propose to reject upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1070 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1070> *b -The question is about whether one can expect the same level of accessibility when certain technology(s) in the baseline is disabled.  Propose to reject.  If CSS is in your baseline and you turn it off, you should expect a lost of content or failure to meet certain sc that the content otherwise would pass. 

 

1088 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1088>  -This is about 2.2.1, not about baseline.

 

1145 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1145> *b -"At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success criteria...: Where does baseline fit in this?"  Proposed to team B to close with "If only one version of the content meets all of level 1 sc, then all the relevant technologies for this version of content should be identified in the baseline.  If more than one version of the content meets all of level 1 sc, then author should, for his self interest and others' as well, identify all relevant technologies for the versions that meet the sc.  But the author should only be obligated to identify the relevant technologies only for one version, not all versions."

 

1148 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1148> *c -This is not about baseline.  There is a contradiction between conformance rule and 4.2.1 & 4.2.3.

 

1168 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1168> *c -This is not about baseline.

 

1172 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1172>  -This is about 4.1.1, not a baseline issue.

 

1202 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1202>  -This is not about baseline.

 

1208 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1208> *c -This is about conformance and 4.2.1 & 4.2.3.

 

1213 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1213>  -This is about candidate recommendation process.  No impact on baseline.

 

1218 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1218> *c -This should not affect baseline.

 

1220 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1220> *d -Commenter warned about potential misunderstanding of baseline concept, but in agreement with the concept.  Also suggest W3C to recommend common baseline.

 

1221 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1221> *b -Commenter suggested that more specific baseline statement, including function and user agent, is needed.  Propose to reject.  User agent and functionality is beyond the concept of baseline.  If appropriate, user can make separate conformance claims in different functionalities or areas.

 

1246 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1246> *b*d -Commenter suggested that better documentation is needed.  Commenter also suggested that the term "assume" in "baseline... is the set of technologies that an author assumes are supported and turned on in accessible user agents" can be a loophole.  We need to be more straight forward with our explanation.  We should simply say that author should check that success criteria are met within the baseline technology and no more.  User agent issues are separate matter.  We ought to make this clear.  Propose to close upon publication of baseline document.

 

1247 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1247> *d -This is a purely editorial suggestion for baseline example.  This can be closed upon publication of better baseline documentation.

 

1248 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1248> *d -Commenter suggested that more baseline examples for corporate web sites would be helpful.  This can be closed upon publication of better baseline documentation.

 

1250 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1250> *b*c*d -Commenter suggested that baseline and conformance claim allow web author to claim conformance while only part of the content/functionalities meet WCAG.  Commenter proposed the conformance statement needs to be more "watertight"- If that section CAN be made accessible (i.e. the techniques exist to make it accessible) then it must be. If it is problematic to make content accessible then a clear indication ... in the conformance claim.  Propose to partial reject upon available of better baseline documentation.  If only part of the web content meets WCAG, conformance statement must make that distinction.  No change is needed from current conformance language except editorial change to make it more obvious to readers.  As to the proposal that content must be made accessible if it CAN be done, it is not part of WCAG or W3C to enforce compliance.  

 

1269 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1269> *d -Editorial suggestion to add the term "interact" in the sentence "including assistive technologies - that help in retrieving and rendering Web content".  Propose to accept for team B to write "...help in retrieving, rendering, and interacting with web content"

 

1270 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1270> *b*d -This is similar to part of 1246.  The term "assume" in the baseline explanation is problematic.  We need to be more straight forward with our explanation.  We should simply say that author should check that success criteria are met within the baseline technology and no more.  User agent issues are separate matter.  We ought to make this clear.  Propose to close upon publication of baseline document.

 

1271 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1271>  -This is an editorial change.  Proposal accepted.  It should be closed.

 

1272 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1272> *b -Commenter suggested that customer setting baseline is not feasible.  He is correct.  Commenter also made editorial suggestion that "governmental bodies" should be changed to "government bodies".  Propose to partial accept and remove customer from list of entities that can set baseline.  It is not necessary to change "governmental" to "government".

 

1273 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1273> *d -Commenter demanded more baseline examples.  Propose to close upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1274 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1274> *d -This is another demand for a common W3C-suggested-baseline.  Propose to close upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1302 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1302> *b -Commenter suggested that without accessible user agents, WCAG compliant content would not be accessible.  Propose to reject with comment that it is possible to use non-UAAG compliant user agents to make WCAG compliant content accessible.  If, for example, there is no non-text content within the conformance claim, then it is not necessary to concern about using a user agent that can or cannot interrupt the text alternatives of the non-text content.  There is close, but not a full, correlation between user agent and baseline.

 

1307 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1307> *b -This is, by-and-large, the same comment as 1302.  Propose to reject with comment that if there is no user agent that would allow the content to meet a specific success criterion, then the content would not be able to meet the corresponding compliance level assuming such criterion is user-agent-dependent.  For example, nobody can claim to meet 2.2.3 unless there is a way to pause the content unless the activity is timing and movement essential.  UAAG compliance is not necessary.

 

1312 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1312> *d -This is a general plead to make WCAG easier to use.  It is not baseline specific.  But EOWG should consider ways to simplify.

 

1313 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1313> *b -This is a general expression of support for baseline concept.  Propose to accept and close.

 

1314 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1314> *b*d -This commenter suggested that WCAG compliant content may not be accessible to user if major user agent are not compatible to technology.  Propose to partial accept with comment (pending better baseline document with added emphasize to list tested user agent, if any)--it is true, but user agent compatibility status with various technology changes frequently.  WCAG is designed to outlive such status change.  It is the responsibility of user agent provider to disclose the compatibility status.  On the other hand, it is not possible for an author to claim conformance to a success criterion if no user agent would allow the content to meet the success criterion, assuming such criterion is user-agent-dependent.

 

1315 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1315> *b*d -This is almost identical to 1314.  Propose to partial accept with comment (pending better baseline document with added emphasize to list tested user agent, if any)--it is true, but user agent compatibility status with various technology changes frequently.  WCAG is designed to outlive such status change.  It is the responsibility of user agent provider to disclose the compatibility status.  On the other hand, it is not possible for an author to claim conformance to a success criterion if no user agent would allow the content to meet the success criterion, assuming such criterion is user-agent-dependent.

 

1316 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1316> *d -Need more concrete examples of baseline.  It can be closed upon publication of better baseline document.

 

1370 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1370> *d -This is a general comment to simply WCAG.

 

1411 <http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1411> *b -This is a very specify comment about jpg technology and baseline.  Action item --more research is needed.  Please assign.

 

1442  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1442> -Item should be closed.



Alex Li 
Manager, Accessibility Standards and Policies
SAP Labs, Inc.
3410 Hillview Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94304
T (650) 687-4770
F (610) 492-2961
M (202) 492-4592 
mailto: alex.li@sap.com
http://www.sap.com <http://www.sap.com/> 
THE BEST-RUN BUSINESSES RUN SAP 
This e-mail is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you are not the addressee it may be unlawful for you to read, copy, distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information in this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately.