- From: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:44:04 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, jan.richards@utoronto.ca
- Message-ID: <OF4D0CD5E1.B651F306-ON85257693.0055ECD3-85257693.00566EE5@us.ibm.com>
Hello,
Regrets for the 12/21 meeting.
Below is additional feedback from IBM:
Section specific comments
1. Guideline A.1.2 This is a general comment about the non web
accessibility compliance points: There are no restrictions on what an
accessibility standard is. It is user defined now. Consequently, the
evaluator could define their own compliance claims.
2. A.1.2.1 In WCAG, it is not a requirement to make a conformance claim.
This provision seems to require that authoring tools make a claim.
Suggest removing "and cite in the conformance claim)" and adding an
additional sentence: "If an ATAG 2.0 conformance claim is made, the
claim should cite the accessibility standards and/or platform
conventions that were followed.
3. A.2.1.1 Define "accessible" as used in the context of this provision.
4. A.2.2.2 The use of "and" at the end of each item in the list seems
redundant with the wording of the provision ("any of the following").
5. A.2.2.2 If you are accessing text, you need access to the caret
position, and the selected text. Does use of a text view preclude
embedded objects? If not then they need to be accessible as well.
6. A.3.1.1 The provision is repeated. Why is this provision needed? It is
already required by provision A.1.1.1.
7. A.3.2.2 Why is this provision needed? It is already required by
provision A.1.1.1.
8. A.3.2.3 This provision is an example of a WCAG requirement that is made
for stringent in ATAG. There's no issue with doing that when there is a
good reason which in this case, I think there is. But the problem is
that the authoring tool developer may have already implemented one of
the other strategies that are allowed by WCAG. Somewhere ATAG should
call out where there are provisions that override WCAG provisions.
Maybe in A.1.1.1?
9. A.3.2.3 This checkpoint only says to stop. Per WCAG 2 you want to be
able to Pause and Hide content.
10. A.3.4.2 This should include role types such as ARIA roles.
11. A.3.4.2 There should be a navigate by relationships: labels, controls,
describedby, etc. should those features be supported.
12. A.3.4.3 Should be scoped to structured element sets that have heading
elements. Suggest changing "If an editing view displays a structured
element set" to "If an editing view displays a structured element set
that includes heading elements".
13. A.3.4.4 Parent and child need clarifying. Suggest " Parent: The owning
element" and "Child: The first owned element" ARIA or HTML might have
some better wording.
14. A.3.6.1 and A.3.6.2 What about auditory settings? Most authoring tools
don't have them but if they do, shouldn't the preference setting be
saved?
15. A.3.7.2 See comment on A.1.2.1 regarding requiring conformance claims
(item a). Item b may not be possible if the author has not met the
requirements of WCAG (included text alternatives, provided structural
markup, etc.) Is item c referring to UAAG version 2.0? If ATAG 2.0 is
on track to finish first, it may be problematic to reference a standard
that is not yet complete and I don't think we want to be referencing
UAAG 1.0 which may be outdated.
Sueann Nichols
877-202-9272 (t/l) 930-0636
ssnichol@us.ibm.com
IBM Human Ability & Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 16:38:23 UTC