- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:02:58 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teama@w3.org, public-wcag-teamb@w3.org, public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <453E3932.2030306@trace.wisc.edu>
There are 17 issues in this category.
1.) Six comments are requests to clarify the differences between the
levels and the WCAG 1.0 priorities
2.) Seven comments are requests to redefine or more clearly document the
selection criterion used to sort items into levels.
3.) The remaining issues are either OBE or need to be considered
individually.
We will be discussing the definition of levels and criterion for sorting
them further at the face to face.
Here are the issues:
*Comment LC-482*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:*
*Comment:*
Item Number: Conformance claims
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
The main principle which distinguished level 1 from level 2 success
criteria in the November 2005 working draft, namely that level 1
criteria may not, whereas level 2 criteria may impose constraints on
expression and presentation of material, has been abandoned in the Last
Call draft. No substitute principle has taken its place. All that the
conformance section now states is that level 1 criteria constitute the
minimum, and level 2 requirements offer an enhanced level of
accessibility. Level 3 is distinguished in so far as these criteria may
not be applicable to all Web content.
The lack of a principled distinction between level 1 and level 2 is a
significant weakness of the guidelines as currently drafted, for several
reasons. First, it invites fragmentation of the standard by failing to
offer any defensible ground for the allocation of success criteria to
conformance levels. In contrast, confidence in the integrity of the WCAG
1.0 conformance scheme, in so far as it worked, is bulstered by the fact
that there was a coherent underlying rationale determining the
assignment of priorities to checkpoints; one was not asked simply to
trust the judgment of the working group in this respect.
Secondly, the WCAG 2.0 levels impose de facto priorities upon success
criteria. The difference between WCAG 1.0 "priorities" and WCAG 2.0
"levels" is in name only. Level A conformance, as in WCAG 1.0, still
requires satisfaction of all level 1 items, and correspondingly at level
2 and even at level 3, where a 50% minimum is arbitrarily imposed.
Developers must, therefore, despite statements in the guidelines to the
contrary, treat level 1 items as more important than level 2 items, and
level 2 items as more important than those at level 3. Yet, unlike WCAG
1.0, there is no rationale, based on impact or any other concept, that
determines and justifies these distinctions among priorities (now called
"levels"). Implementors, policy makers and other audiences have no
reason to believe that the allocation of levels to success criteria is
anything better than the outcome of compromise.
This shortcoming of the guidelines needs to be remedied in two steps.
First, the working group should agree upon one or more clear, pertinent
and applicable criteria to distinguish level 1 from level 2 items.
Secondly, the whole document should be reviewed in light of these
criteria, re-allocating success criteria to levels as needed to bring
the guidelines into accord with the chosen principles.
Alternative proposals are provided below. These are not intended to be
exhaustive of the possibilities; other solutions may, and should, also
be considered.
Proposed Change:
Option 1. Reinstate the principle that level 1 success criteria enable
user agents and other tools to adapt the content to meet a wide range of
access requirements, without imposing constraints on the expression or
presentation of the content. Level 2 criteria make the content directly
accessible by regulating expression and presentation as needed to
achieve a high degree of accessibility.
Option 2: Establish "impact", as in WCAG 1.0, as the main distinction
between level 1 and level 2 criteria, while acknowledging that this does
not apply to requirements primarily aimed at aiding cognition. For
success criteria primarily related to cognitive disabilities, establish
a requirement that level 1 criteria do not impose constraints on the
expression, whether linguistically, graphically, auditorily etc., of the
content. This leads to the following:
a. At level 1, success criteria eliminate barriers that would otherwise
make it impossible, due to a sensory or physical disability, to access
the content. At level 2, success criteria overcome barriers that would
otherwise make it very difficult, due to a sensory or physical
disability, to access the content. Level 3 criteria further facilitate
access (as in WCAG 1.0 priority 3).
b. Level 1 criteria substantially enhance the effectiveness with which
people with cognitive disabilities can access the content, without
imposing constraints on the expression, whether in language, sound or
images, of the information and functionality provided by the content.
Level 2 criteria further facilitate cognition by requiring content to be
expressed in ways that improve its accessibility to people with a
variety of cognitive disabilities. Level 3 criteria are the same as
level 2, but place requirements on expression that cannot be applied to
all types of content.
Option 3: Establish a metric of implementation difficulty that is
applicable across technologies and will remain stable over time. This
would roughly correspond to the amount of effort required of an author
to implement the success criteria. Level 1 criteria would demand minimal
effort while substantially overcoming barriers to access, level 2 more
effort, and level 3 still further. The measure of "difficulty", "effort"
or whatever, would provide the basis for making this distinction more
precise. I doubt whether such an idea can be worked out in practice, and
I along with other proponents of enhanced accessibility would object to
its introduction into the guidelines
- benefit to people with disabilities, rather than impact on authors,
should be the primary means of distinguishing among conformance levels.
Also, such an approach would promote the idea that accessibility is a
burden rather than an opportunity, clearly an undesirable result.
Option 4: Divide the success criteria in WCAG 2.0 into two categories:
(a) "general": criteria applicable to all types of Web content; and (b)
"special": criteria only applicable to some types of Web content. This
distinction is already used, albeit roughly, to separate out certain of
the criteria currently classified as at level 3. Under this proposal,
define the three conformance levels as follows:
Level A conformance means that half (50%) of the general success
criteria are satisfied.
Level AA conformance means that all of the general success criteria are
satisfied.
Level AAA conformance means that all of the general success criteria,
and all of the special success criteria applicable to the type of
content involved, are satisfied.
The "special" success criteria would have to be defined and grouped into
categories to make clear which should be applied to which kinds of
content, and how the different types of content could be distinguished.
Note also that additional aids to cognition - controlled vocabularies,
symbol systems, etc., could be itnroduced as "special" criteria in the
sense indicated in this proposal. They could also be introduced at level
3 under other proposals outlined above.
Variations on the above proposals can of course easily be created.
Whatever proposal is chosen, whether one of the above or not, the
success criteria must all be reviewed and, as necessary, reclassified in
accordance with it.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA]
[HOLD] - Wait til after all comments are in to address.
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:55:01
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-614*
*Sort Terms:* levels - description
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com> *Affiliation:* Invited
expert at W3C, UB access
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):
Level 3 success criteria:
1. Achieve additional accessibility enhancements.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.
I object to definition. Because many criteria are level 3 only because
they are considered too hard to do on all web content does not mean that
level 1 and two achieve minimal and enhanced accessibility.
Level 3 is also minimal accessibility
Proposed Change:
change of wording
Level 3 success criteria:
1. Achieve minimal accessibility, or, if the Success criteria can be
applied to all Web content, achieves additional accessibility enhancements.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
It is true that for some people the Leel 3 criteria will achieve minimal
acessibility...ie. cognitive, deaf-blind etc... recommend a partial
accept. I think the word that may be mislieading is "enhancements" which
basically means that there is a certain amount of accessibility present
in Level 1&2 which is enhanced in Level 3. This depends on how it is
interpreted. If we are talking about overall accessibility as a blanket
generic concept Level 3 does enhance the overall accessibility by
providing a minimal level for a target audience.
I am not sure when we are dealing with Cognitive issues that we can look
for "direct hits" in the guidelines (guidelines specifically designed
for cognitive issues) I think there is much benefit in looking at all
the guidelines for places where they impact *some* people with cognitive
issues.
In general there are many Guideline whose primary target may be blind
people or people other disabililites which also give substantial
improvement of accessibility to some people with cognitive issues also.
In looking at Level one I would say there are 9 Sucess Criteria that
improve access for some people with cognitive disabilities. For
instance, I know a lady who has a form of dyslexia that prevents her
from using a mouse. For her, every Success Criteria that makes the web
site keyboard accessible is a benefit to her, in fact these Success
Criteria are crucial to her employment. Some people with cognitive
issues may benefit from have headings which programmatically determined
because they may use a User Agent which takes advantage of Heading
levels. Guidelines that prevent the web site from changing focus
unexpectedly help some people with cognitive issues. Guidelines that
extend time outs help some people with cognitive issues who are slower
to respond. Contrast, and flashing related guidelines help some people
with cognitive disabilities. The 4.1 guideline that makes sure all
content of the site meets level one swings us back around to apply these
issues to other technologies or at least provide the content in the
baseline technology which does conform.
We should not consider Cognitive disabilities as one big lump. When we
look at the guidelines through the eyes of different kinds of cognitive
issues we find many Success Criteria that help many different kinds of
cognitive disabilities.
I recommend a partial accept and rewrite:
1. Achieves additional overal accessibility, and provides minimal
accessibility for some individuals.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.
--
Discussed on the 22 June 2006 teleconference
Resolution: Put issue 614 on hold in category of "level descriptions" so
we can look at all the level related issues together.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/06/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html
previous proposal:
Partial accept, propose the following rewrite:
Level 3 success criteria:
1. Achieves additional overall accessibility, and provides minimal
accessibility for some individuals.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.
Respond to Lisa.
Thank you Lisa, you make a good point and we have adapted the phrase to
make it clear that Level 3 provides minimum accessbility for some
individuals. The proposed rewrite is as follows:
Level 3 success criteria:
1. Achieves additional overall accessibility, and provides minimal
accessibility for some individuals.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* David MacDonald
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:37:29
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-662*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lynn Alford <imla@jcu.edu.au> *Affiliation:* James Cook
University
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
Given that the conformance document states \"The success criteria for
each guideline are organized into three (3) levels.
Level 1 success criteria: Achieve a minimum level of accessibility.
Level 2 success criteria: Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility.
Level 3 success criteria: Achieve additional accessibility enhancements\"
Then is the following statement true as well? \"This method of grouping
success criteria differs in important ways from the approach taken in
WCAG 1.0. Each checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was assigned a \"priority\"
according to its impact on accessibility. Thus, Priority 3 checkpoints
appeared to be less important than Priority 1 checkpoints. The WCAG
Working Group believes that all success criteria of WCAG 2.0 are
essential for some people. Thus, the system of checkpoints and
priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by success criteria under
Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above.\"
The fact that level 1 is described as \'minimum level of
accessibility\', level 2 as \'enhanced level of accessibility\' and
level 3 as \'additional\' makes the levels feel very much the same as
priorities in WCAG 1. Is this method of grouping truly different?
Proposed Change:
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:23:51
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-737*
*Sort Terms:* Simpler WCAG, Baseline, Scoping, levels , accum
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Rick Hill <<rrhill@ucdavis.edu>>
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:* 0Free(none selected)
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#0Free>
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
I for one do not have the time to read all of the WCAG 2 documents in
the 30-day review time-frame that has been provided. Having read Joe
Clark\'s comments at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/
tohellwithwcag2 and http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WCAG/ as
well as postings at http://technorati.com/tag/WCAG2. If only 10% of
the issues that are identified on these sites are true, then WCAG 2
is NOT ready for prime time. If it is true that web pages that meet
WCAG 2 need not be valid HTML/XHTML then that is utterly contrary to
the concept of web standards and is a HUGE step in the wrong
direction. I would hope that the WCAG 2 standards build on and
enhance the standards of WCAG 1 that many of us have worked hard to
promote in our work places. Other comments:
1. The provision to define a technology as a "baseline," is not
useful unless there is either some way to make sure that the
technology is inherently accessible and/or that there are provisions
to provide alternate technologies to provide accessible versions of
the content where the baseline technology fails.
2. Being able to define entire directories of your site as off-limits
to accessibility should only be allowed when the content cannot be
made accessible.
3. The compliance \"levels\" do not seem to have become simpler.
Perhaps more cryptic. And I would like to see a move toward
enforcible standrads rather than merely guidelines (as in what was
attempted with the language of 508).
4. You can't use offscreen positioning to add labels (e.g., to forms)
that only some people, like users of assistive technology, can
perceive. Everybody has to see them.
5. Source order must match presentation order even at the lowest
level ... why?
6. It would seem that WCAG 2 proposes maintaining separate accessible
and inaccessible versions of the same pages.
Again, I wish I had the time to drop my day-to-day tasks, stop
pushing for web standard design in our environment (including
accessible design) and devote my time to being able to read an
comment on the final WCAG 2 draft. However, the comments from folks
in the know and in the filed have not been encouraging. So, I
decided to drop a line and express my concerns and fears. SInce it
took years for the committee to reach this point, it would seem a
slightly longer review period to allow comment is in order. And one
would hope, if the public (those folks working to promote accessible
design) have real concerns about the standard, then the committee
needs to regroup and address those concerns, not publish a set of
guidelines that will not be accepted or used in practice ...
Proposed Change:
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]
The numbered items in this comment were broken out into separate items.
(LC-829 through LC-834).
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
829, <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=829,>
thru, <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=thru,>
834 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=834>
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-16 16:49:49
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-813*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Sailesh Panchang
<sailesh.panchang@deque.com> *Affiliation:* Deque Systems Inc
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:*
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
Confusing: repetition of requirements for SC at different levels
Question: Does complying with an SC at L1 automatically leads to
compliance of an SC at L2?
Example: When audio descriptions for a video are provided (SC1.2.2) then
SC 1.2.3 is also being complied with simultaneously, is it not?
In this context what is the difference between 'minimum level' and
'enhanced level' of accessibility? In what context ? Who decides if it
is minimum or enhanced?
In the understanding WCAG 2.0 doc there are no distinctions highlighted
between 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 as far as audio descriptions and level of
accessibility are concerned.
Conversely, why is not the SC at L1 for GL 1.1 also listed at L2?
Proposed Change:
Do not repeat requirements at L2 if they are already listed at L1 for a
guideline; and do not repeat at L3 what is already stated at L1 or L2
for a guideline.
Signed language interpretation is required only at L3 for 1.2 and this
is not repeated at L1 or L2. This is how it should be.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
{not-accept - invalid}
There is no repeat of success criteria. At level 1, there is a choice.
At Level 2, audio description must be provided if not already chosen as
the option in Level 1. At Level 3, a full text equivalent is required if
not chosen as the method for Level 1.
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-14 18:09:21
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-831*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Rick Hill <rrhill@ucdavis.edu>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
3. The compliance "levels" do not seem to have become simpler.
Perhaps more cryptic. And I would like to see a move toward
enforcible standrads rather than merely guidelines (as in what was
attempted with the language of 508).
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
Relates to LC-737
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-03 18:54:26
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-897*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> *Affiliation:*
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
the def. of level 1/2/3 is vague: what does "a minimum", "enhanced",
"additional" mean? are you asserting that accessibility is a property
that can be totally ordered over a ordered scale, as these adjectives
are suggesting?
Proposed Change:
try to refer to defineable and measurable parameters; or, more
reaslistically, say that this is an assumption that you may describe in
details when presenting each success level.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-06-26 20:24:26
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-898*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> *Affiliation:*
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
and what do "can be reasonably" and "cannot necessarily be applied" mean?
Proposed Change:
again, this should be clearly stated as an assumption, when presenting
each single criterion. From these "non definitions" readers would get
that there is an increase of required effort (as conformance levels
increases), an increase in accessibility (whatever that means), but
would not be given any means for understanding which will the benefits
that visitors of the website will get. And if these benefits are worth
the cost (of "non reasonably" applying certain techniques).
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-03 21:32:36
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-899*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> *Affiliation:*
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
in particular the only difference between L1 and L2 is that one is
"minimum" accessibility and the other is "enhanced". Why distinguishing
them? if both sets of techniques can be equally easily applied, why
should one want to go for the minimum?
Proposed Change:
provide a definition of these levels that refer to benefits that can
make sense to people managing a website, so that they can take informed
decisions as to whether to achieve a higher level or not.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-14 18:05:59
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-919*
*Sort Terms:* levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> *Affiliation:*
University of Udine, Italy
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* consistent-behavior
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#consistent-behavior>
*Comment:*
to me the distinction between L1 L2 L3 is arbitrary. violation of any of
them is likely to hinder some user, and they seem to me equally
difficult or easy to achieve
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-14 05:40:44
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1024*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:*
*Comment:*
Conformance schema - The decision to remove the design requirement from
Level 1 has meant there is no appreciable difference between Level 1 and
Level 2. I recall many instances where SC were moved to L2 because of
this design requirement, yet I have not seen any indication that these
SC are being moved back in to L1.
Proposed Change:
Merge Level 1 and Level 2 SC into one group called "Mandatory". Rename
Level 3 to "Advisory" or "Optional" Alternatively set up a taskforce
(which I volunteer to be a part of, or head) to review L2 and L3 SC to
see if they can be moved to L1.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-06-27 03:48:55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1242*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Henny Swan <henny.swan@rnib.org.uk> *Affiliation:*
Royal National Institute of the Blind
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
Comment: The text "The WCAG Working Group believes that all success
criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system of
checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by success
criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above" is not very clear,
it is still difficult to understand the rationale behind the move from
WCAG 1 and Priorities to WCAG 2 and "Levels".
Proposed Change:
Expand and explain the rationale
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-06-28 05:48:20
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1266*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Andrew Arch
<andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> *Affiliation:* Vision Australia
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance> (Note 1)
*Comment:*
Comment: para 3 - "... all SC are essential for some people". However,
the previous para indicates that Level 1 is sufficient to provide a
minimum level of accessibility. This is contradictory.
Proposed Change:
address the contradiction
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-04 02:57:31
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1303*
*Sort Terms:* Levels
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance> (levels for
success criteria)
*Comment:*
Structural/substantive issue
The current levels system for success criteria seems insufficiently
described, and inappropriate to the needs of developers.
WCAG 20 acknowledges that most criteria are essential in order for some
people to be able to use some types of web content. It then attempts to
describe the amount of benefit to usersin general (the difference
between level 1 and level 2) and the apparent applicability of a
technique to the web. It appears that the goal is to provide a
"reasonable" implementation planning tool.
Both of these things are in fact situation-dependent. In some cases, it
will be easy, in others critical, to apply approaches whose level
suggests that they are not so important or easy in the general case.
Thus, while providing a signed equivalent of content is extremely
important in a number of cases, and is occasionally trivially easy (in
others it is quite expensive), it is perfectly possible that all web
content claiming triple-A conformance is without signed content.
Similarly, there is no clear technical justification for different
requirement levels for captioning depending on whether content is
"live"/"real-time", or pre-recorded. The accesibility result for users
who rely on captions is exactly the same in both cases. Again, this may
be easy to implement in some cases, and is very expensive in others, and
its relative importance will be variable.
In order to assist developers, and policy makers, WCAG should describe
the imact on users of a particular success criterion being met or not.
This enables prioritisation based on the actual situation, rather than a
generalised model situation which will often be an inaccurate
representation of the case at hand.
I propose that either:
1. the levels be removed, and the information in the currently
informative "Understanding WCAG" about who benefits be moved to the
normtive recommendation. Or, as an alternative
2. the specification revert to the WCAG 1.0 priority scheme, rather than
with the "apparent ease of implementation" clouding the question of
their relevance to users.
cheers
Chaals
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-03 15:27:10
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending Issues
*Comment LC-1243*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Henny Swan <henny.swan@rnib.org.uk> *Affiliation:*
Royal National Institute of the Blind
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
Comment: The text "Note that even conformance to all three levels will
not make Web content accessible to all people." is a bit misleading as
people may think "why bother".
Proposed Change:
Provide explanation.
*Status:* Proposal from team to be surveyed (proposal).
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Proposed by Individual or Small Group:*
{accept}
See LC-1027 for related actions
@@ respond with
We have revised this sentence to read, "Note that even conformance to
all three levels of WCAG 2.0 will not make Web content accessible to all
people. As was true for WCAG 1.0 even content that is AAA conformant
will not overcome the accessibility barriers faced by those with certain
combinations of disabilities or with certain types of severe disabilities."
*Related Issues:*
570 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=570>
1027 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1027>
*Assigned To:* Ben Caldwell
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-24 15:52:06
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closed Issues
*Comment LC-532*
*Sort Terms:* LEVELS
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca> *Affiliation:* ATRC UofT
*Comment Type:* editorial
*Location:* conformance
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance>
*Comment:*
Item Number: Technology assumptions and the
Part of Item:
Comment Type: ED
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
For the section prior to ...assumptions and the baseline... which isn't
included in the items that can be commented on.
References are made to Level 1 2 3, then Note 1 that follows refers to
Triple-A conformance. Prior to this though, there has been no mention of
A, AA, AAA confomance rankings. Novices to the guidelines may not make
the connection if it is not described explicitely. Not until much
further down the page is the association made.
Proposed Change:
Perhaps a note explaining the association, or a reference to an anchor
further down the page would be approriate here.
*Status:* Resolved (resolved_yes).
*Response Status:* Resolution implemented
*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ]
LGR comment: Note 1 would be less confusing if it were associated with
the definition of AAA, rather than the definition of the levels. I
suggest keeping the current wording and moving it down to the
"Conformance levels and the baseline"
Discussed 29 June 2006
Back to editors to clarify note above.
http://www.w3.org/2006/06/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html
BBC: Updated resolution per LGR comment 19 Sept.
Discussed in the 21 September 2006 telecon:
accepted by unanimous consent
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}
DONE move note 1 from conformance section to "Conformance levels and the
baseline" and revise it to read:
Note 1: Levels 1, 2 and 3 closely relate to the levels of conformance
(A, Double-A, and Triple-A). However, because not all level 3 success
criteria can be used with all types of content, Triple-A conformance
only requires conformance to a portion of level 3 success criteria.
Internal WD updated 22 September.
*Resolution - Pending Response:*
Good suggestion. Note 1 has been moved to the section titled
"Conformance levels and the baseline" and revised to read:
Note 1: Levels 1, 2 and 3 closely relate to the levels of conformance
(A, Double-A, and Triple-A). However, because not all level 3 success
criteria can be used with all types of content, Triple-A conformance
only requires conformance to a portion of level 3 success criteria.
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-22 18:02:38
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1027*
*Sort Terms:* Definition of Accessibility & LEVELS remove statement that
all content cannot be made accessible. and merge levels BASELINE
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:*
*Comment:*
Definition of accessibility - In the Baseline document (under the
heading 'If the WCAG does not set the baseline, then how can we be sure
that a site will be accessible?) it says "No site or content is ever
completely accessible". In the Conformance document it says "Note that
even conformance to all three levels will not make web content
accessible to all people." I strongly object to these statements. All
content can be made accessible. In some cases, content may not be
accessible, but if the problems were identified it could be made
accessible. As the main body representing accessibility I think it
reprehensible that we have these statements.
Proposed Change:
Remove the statements. Merge Level 1 and Level 2 SC into one group
called 'Mandatory'. Rename Level 3 to 'Advisory' or 'Optional'
*Status:* Resolved (resolved_no).
*Response Status:* Resolution implemented
*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ]
Discussed in the 21 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: accept LC-1027 as amended
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/21-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{reject}
DONE Replace the sentence, "Note that even conformance to all three
levels will not make Web content accessible to all people." with, "Note
that even conformance to all three levels of WCAG 2.0 will not make Web
content accessible to all people. As was true for WCAG 1.0 even content
that is AAA conformant will not overcome the accessibility barriers
faced by those with certain combinations of disabilities or with certain
types of severe disabilities." (leave original sentence bold and new
sentence unbolded)
Internal WD updated 25 September.
*Resolution - Pending Response:*
The statements you refer to are meant to reflect the reality that not
all Web content can be made accessible to all people. One of the lessons
learned with WCAG 1.0 was that, for some individuals, even content that
meets WCAG 1.0 AAA did not overcome the accessibility barriers faced by
those with certain combinations of disabilities or with certain types of
severe disabilities.
Regarding the proposal to combine levels one and two as mandatory and
rename level 3 to advisory or optional, the working group has received a
great deal of feedback on both sides of this issue. We have chosen 3
levels because we feel it provides the best options for the different
users of the guidelines.
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-25 18:47:34
*
<http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/35422/wcag20-lc/1027>*
--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 16:04:04 UTC