- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:08:50 -0500
- To: public-wcag-teama@w3.org, public-wcag-teamb@w3.org, public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <453E1E72.3090502@trace.wisc.edu>
There are 14 issues in this category, which is focused on what is
required to meet Triple-A conformance.
1.) 5 comments suggest that 50% of the applicable level 3 items is not
enough and suggest increasing the requirement.
2.) 5 comments seem to misunderstand or misinterpret requirements for
Triple-A conformance as written (mostly by assuming that 50% can be met
without any effort on the part of the author)
3.) 2 comments have been discussed, but have incomplete action items
(LC-533 and LC-605).
Here are the issues:
*Comment LC-516*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
*Comment Type:* question
*Location:* accessible-alternatives
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#accessible-alternatives>
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Should there be a criterion corresponding to 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 introduced
at level 3, requiring that at least one version of (each Web unit in
the) content satisfy at least 50% of the applicable level 3 success
criteria? Alternatively, is it sufficient that all versions of the
content together meet 50% of the relevant success criteria in order to
constitute level 3 conformance?
Proposed Change:
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-08-07 22:36:05
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-533*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca> *Affiliation:* ATRC UofT
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* baseline <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#baseline>
*Comment:*
Item Number: Technology assumptions and the
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
There is a relatively easy possibility of Level AAA compliance by virtue
of ommision. By default, the vast majority of sites will meet 50% of the
level 3 guidelines without trying. The following are arguably not
relevant on most Web sites.
---------------------
Irrelevant for most sites
1.2.5 (w/ no MM)
1.2.6 (w/ no MM)
1.2.7 (w/ no MM)
1.4.3 (use standard B/W)
1.4.4 (with no audio content)
2.1.2 (with no time dependence)
2.2.4 (no timed events)
2.2.5 (no auto updated content)
2.2.6 (no timeout)
2.3.2 (use no flashing components)
2.4.6 (don\'t use tab to create inconsitent tab ordering
3.1.6 (write in an alphabetic language)
3.2.5 (use no auto redirects)
4.2.4 (use only baseline technologies)
---------------------------
Potentially 13 L3 met by omission
So without any extra effort, a site without any of the above
technologies would meet enough level 3 criteria to comply, even though
none of the guidelines are relevant.
Things that could be done relevant to the content of the majority of sites
Relevant to most sites
2.4.5 (use descriptive titles, headings, and labels)
2.4.7 (use breadcrumb links to navigate, and identify location within a
hierarchy)
2.4.8 (use meaningfult link text)
2.5.4 (describe expected input for form fields)
3.1.3 (provide a glossary)
3.1.4 (expand all abbreviations)
3.1.5 (Use low level language)
---------------------------
Potentially 7 L3 relevant to most sites.
Proposed Change:
Perhspa 75% of level 3 items would be more appropriate, or maybe 50%,
which includes at least 4 or 5 items (or maybe all) from the second list
of more common level 3 items.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
Submitted by Team A 5/23/06
Close with comment:
{partial accept}
"The conformance clause specifies that:
"at least half (50%) of the Level 3 success criteria that apply to the
content types used are met assuming user agent support for only the
technologies in the specified baseline. " So the scenario you describe
would not apply. They would have to meet 50% of what was left (which
would be your second list in the case you present). So the problem you
identify is addressed by the current wording. "
discussed 5/15/06 telecon
put on hold
@@ David, michael, bruce, loretta, cynthia to explore alternate formulations
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:38:13
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-539*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA conformance implications 2.1.2
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca> *Affiliation:* ATRC UofT
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:* keyboard-operation-all-funcs
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#keyboard-operation-all-funcs>
*Comment:*
Item Number: Success Criterion 2.2.1 <-- this appears to be a typo
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I'm not sure about the distinction between 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Does it mean
if there is required time dependant content, such as a reaction time
test, the web unit can not comply at level 3. This could potentially be
an issues, albeit unlikely, if a site were pursuing Level 2 or 3
conformance, but had a time dependant test, for example.
Proposed Change:
In such a case I would expect an accessibility statement or statement of
scope to exclude the timed test, thus rendering the guideline irrelevant
to a claim of Level 2 or 3 compliance. 2.1.2 sounds like it may not be
enforcable. Perhaps remove it.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
Submitted by Team A 5/23/06
PUT ON HOLD at WG Telcon 5/25/06
{not accepted}
It is the specific intent that timed content such as timed tests not be
able to conform to this success criterion. The goal is to encourage the
development of other non-time-based forms instead. Also note that
Triple-A (AAA) conformance does not require you to conform to all level
3 success criteria, you only need to meet 50% of those that apply to
your content type. A site with a timed test could therefore conform with
Triple-A (AAA) conformance if they meet enough of the other level 3
criteria.
Survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/TEAMaMAY25/results#xLC539
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:38:23
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-605*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* David MacDonald <Befree@magma.ca> *Affiliation:*
working group member/ consultant
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance-reqs
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance-reqs>
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
I think there are problems with the idea that someone can claim level 3
conformance if they do only 50% of the techniques that apply to their
content. That means someone could claim Level 3 conformance and have an
audio track that has a loud background when there is a Level 3 SC that
specifically says don't do this. I realize that some Level three items
are very difficult. But that is what level 3 is all about - going above
and beyond. (If some of our Level 3 SC are unrealistically difficult
then let's remove those ones) On the other hand, if we are just
providing level 3 as a way to encourage people to provide extra
accessibility then it should not be a Level but rather a separate
advisory section of our guidelines. I don't think we can allow people to
say they have reached a level of conformance while blatantly while
breaking the GL or SC in that level. I think it undermines the integrity
of our Guidelines. I think it will be a source of much confusion and
conflict in the public and among disability groups.
Proposed Change:
Require 100% of Level 3 SC that apply to the content to be met in order
to meet Level 3. If there are some SC that the group identifies as
unrealistically difficult then remove them to a separate document called
something like "going the extra mile."
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
There is a sub committee looking into this now, David, Michael, Loretta,
Cynthia. They will come back with a proposal.
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* David MacDonald
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:38:29
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-619*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com> *Affiliation:* Invited
expert at W3C, UB access
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* (Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 3.1)
*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):
mechanism is available for ....
A mechanism is only useful if: it is usable by AT or b, it is usable by
the user
Proposed Change:
change definition of mechanism to process or technique for achieving a
result that is easy (does not require a change of context, and uses
simple language) for the user to use can be programmatically determined
for AT for people with learning disabilities
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD] If a mechanism is implemented so
that this SC is adhered to, it would automatically need to be accessible
to the same level as the conformance claimed in the rest of the content.
So, is it necessary to specify that mechanism be accessible? Perhaps a
note should be added to the definition of mechanism to say "Process or
technique for achieving a result. Note: mechanisms used must adhere to
SC as prescribed by the conformance level claimed for the unit in which
it is used". This not would cover "easy (does not require a change of
context, and uses simple language)for the user to use can be
programmatically determined for AT for people with learning disabilities".
Discussed 29 June 2006
resolution: 619 referred back to team B
http://www.w3.org/2006/06/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html
note = this say ALL SC at conformance level. Need to hold til AAA
conformance is resolved.
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
{partial accept}
@@
Add a note to the definition: "Note: the mechanism must meet all success
criteria for the conformance level claimed".
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-09-14 05:47:49
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-621*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*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> (Note 1)
*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):
Quote: 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
This means that no one will bother with level three because you can
claim Triple-A conformance by just doing one level 3 SC
Proposed Change:
Remove this paragraph
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD] Pending resolution of Triple-A
conformance claims.
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
Reject. Respond with: "Thanks Lisa. Triple-A claim requires conformance
to 50% of applicable Level success criteria. One could claim Triple-A
conformance for just one Level 3 SC if and if only two Level 3 SC were
in the baseline. That said, the requirements for Triple-A conformance
claim are being reconsidered."
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:38:43
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-652*
*Sort Terms:* baseline cognitive LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Lars Ballieu Christensen <lbc@sensus.dk> *Affiliation:*
Sensus ApS - European Accessibility Consultants
*Comment Type:* substantive
*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):
As a practitioner with 10 years experince in advising site owners and
developers on how to develop web sites that are accessible to the widest
range of users using the widest range of technilogies, I find the
following the following issues in WCAG2 highly problematic:
The introduction of a technology baseline; the concept of a baseline is
in my opinion in itself in direct conflict with the idea of creating
inclusive solutions; I fear that the baseline will be used widely to
formally pass accessbility tests by omitting all potentially tricky
technologies from the baseline. In my opinion, the baseline is a mistake
that should be removed from the document. If the aim is to promote an
inclusive envisonment, the whole notion of accepting lower standards in,
say, private intranets is absurd as it will preent people with special
needs to work in these environments.
The document is still heavily biased towards the visually impaired. By
and large, other groups of people with special needs are in practice
omitted from the substance of the guidelines. These include, but are not
limited to, the deaf, dyslexic, people with reading difficulties, and
the cognitively disabled. The standard remedy of demanding that all
non-textual information also be represented as textual information is
simply not enough.
The idea of granting triple-A conformance status to a web site if it
passes half (randomly selected?) the level 3 success criteria does not
make sense. It suggests either that the level 3 success criteria are
irrelevant to the general accessibilily or that it is more important to
be able to pass the test than to comply with the level 3 success criteria.
Proposed Change:
1. Omit the concept of a baseline from the document.
2. Accommodate other - and in many cases much larger - user groups than
merely the visually disabled. Complement the text alternative
requirement with requirements for other alternatives including
simplified text and sign language.
3. Decide whether and which of the level 3 success criteria are
important. Leave out the unimportant and make the rest mandatory for
gaining triple-A conformance status.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:38:56
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-691*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Bruno von Niman
<ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com> *Affiliation:* ANEC
(ANEC-ICT-2006-W3C-006)
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance-reqs
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance-reqs>
*Comment:*
Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):
Triple-A conformance requires only conformance to a
"portion of level 3 success criteria". In practice, this is
set to 50%.
Proposed Change:
This may be more than OK for Web sites developed
for commercial purposes (e.g. by small companies)
but should require more from e.g. public sites, where
competence and resources are less of an issue
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:39:06
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-859*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA related
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* media-equiv-sign
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#media-equiv-sign>
*Comment:*
From
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0119.html
Again after many unheeded warnings, the Working Group published the
following guideline for multimedia (at the highest level):
Sign-language interpretation is provided for multimedia.
First of all, which sign language? For an English-language source, no
fewer than five distinct, if not always mutually unintelligible, sign
languages can be identified (American, British, Irish, Australian, New
Zealand).
More importantly, WCAG now requires translating a document (a multimedia
file) into another language as a claimed accessibility provision. To
restate the same question I have been posing for years, what prevents a
Ukrainian-speaker from demanding that a Web site be translated into
Ukrainian? After all, in both cases the issue is the incomprehensibility
of the language of the original, not the disability. (A deaf person is
not necessarily unable to read. Deaf people can and do understand and
communicate in written language. A reliance on sign language, or even a
preference for it, does not logically follow from being deaf.)
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
{reject}
This is a level 3 SC and is provided for those who want to make their
pages particularly accessible to people who are deaf and for whom a
written form of the spoken language is hard for them to read. The SC
does not assume that all individuals who are deaf have trouble with
written language but acknowledges that some do. The specific type of
sign language is not specified and is therefore up to the author. Note
that with level AAA conformance model this SC is not required even at
the highest (most comprehensive) level of conformance (level AAA).
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Alex Li
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:39:39
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-888*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Monica Løland, The Danish Council of Organisations of
Disabled People (DSI) <mol@handicap.dk> *Affiliation:* The Danish
Council of Organisations of Disabled People (DSI)
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* conformance-reqs
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#conformance-reqs>
*Comment:*
Part of Item:
Comment Type: substantive
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
According to WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Triple-A (AAA) is met when
all Level 1, all Level 2 and at least 50 % of the Level 3 success
criteria that apply to the content types used are met. How are the 50 %
selected -- randomly?
Proposed Change:
We mean that it is important for WCAG to decide in advance which of the
Level 3 criteria shall be met to obtain Triple-A conformance.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-08-21 21:25:29
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1023*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA conformance
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
*Comment Type:* general comment
*Location:*
*Comment:*
AAA conformance - It is not clear how one achieves AAA conformance. In
the WCAG 2.0 document (under the 'Conformance' heading) there is a note
"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". Does this mean a site can claim Triple-A
conformance if they comply with all Level A and Level AA SC and one
Triple-A SC? This statement is in contradiction with information in the
"Baseline" document which states (under the 'Vertical and Horizontal
scoping in conformance statements' - first question) "Any web content
for which Level AAA conformance is claimed must meet all Level 1 and
Level 2 success criteria plus at least 50% of applicable Level 3 success
criteria".
Proposed Change:
Firstly, there must be consistency between the two documents and how to
claim AAA conformance must be clearly detailed. I do not understand why
AAA is being treated differently to A and AA. I believe AAA compliance
should mean compliance with all AAA SC, not just ones the developer
chooses to implement.
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 21:40:04
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1264*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*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: Why do we need to say that Triple-A only requires conformance
to a portion of the level 3 SC? This was the case in WCAG 1 at all
levels and we just used to say NA (not applicable) for a checkpoint if
there was no multimedia or no frames etc. This particularly relates to
the later section suggesting that only 50% of level 3 SC need to be met
to claim Triple-A
Proposed Change:
rephrase this Note to specify that not all level 3 SC might apply, and a
web unit only needs to conform to the applicable ones to claim triple-A
conformance
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 22:11:43
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1275*
*Sort Terms:* LevelAAA
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Andrew Arch
<andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> *Affiliation:* Vision Australia
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:* (#3 AAA)
*Comment:*
Comment: I disagree with allowing 50% conformance as sufficient for a
AAA pass - we should take the same approach as WCAG 1.0 and require all
checkpoints to be passed unless they are 'not applicable'. This approach
still works with the concept that not all level 3 SC will apply to all
web content.
Proposed Change:
change from 50% to "100% unless not applicable"
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [TEAMA] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-07-18 22:10:45
**
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Comment LC-1309*
*Sort Terms:* cognitive LevelAAA conformance
*Document:* WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
*Submitter:* Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
*Comment Type:* substantive
*Location:*
*Comment:*
The guidelines place in level 3 very many of the requirements necessary to
help people with cognitive and reading disabilities access the web. Since
only 50% of level 3 requirements (as chosen by content authors) need to be
met in order to claim confomance to the guidelines, it is quite possible
to conform to the guidelines at triple-A level while doing very little
(and clearly not enough) to address the needs of these user groups.
I propose either that this be explicitly and clearly explained in the
introductory and conformance sections, or that the levels system be
reworked as per my lat call comment on them.
cheers
Chaals
*Status:* open
*Working Group Notes:* [EDITORZ] [HOLD]
*Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:*
*Related Issues:*
*Assigned To:* Nobody
*Last Edited:* 2006-10-20 20:24:59
--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 14:09:20 UTC