W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

Submitted EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:54:15 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Dear EOWG Participants,

Following is an updated compilation of EOWG comments on the WCAG 2.0 Last 
Call Working Draft, based on our finalization of these at our 16 June 2006 
teleconference, and previous discussions at our meetings on 5, 12, and 19 
May 2006. They are re-organized, and I've also re-phrased many of them to 
better fit the comment form (which separates the reason for the comment) 
from the I've also included links to the comments as they appear are now 
archived on the public-wcag20-comments list. I've also added links to the 
submitted comments.
(FYI The comments were all submitted before midnight on 22 June in the time 
zone that they were submitted from, even though the mailing list server 
shows these as 23 June because it runs on GMT.)

I have not included the comments on the baseline document that we did at 
our ealiest call on this (5 May 2006) because (1) those do not have a 
deadline of 22 June; and (2) there were some requested edits to our 
comments from EOWG active participants and I haven't yet been able to 
integrate those. Stay tuned for that batch, which we can still submit as a 

I'm sorry that I was not able to circulate a pre-submission version of this 
showing the edits from our teleconference last Friday, or to show the 
rephrasing in advance. Please post any follow-up comments or questions to 
the EOWG list for discussion.


- Judy

[COMMENTS ON COMPARISON BETWEEN WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 (from EOWG Teleconference 
20060519] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixD.html

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0194.html
Having an empty Quick Table of Contents is confusing
Eliminate the Quick Table of Contents, unless subsections are added so that 
a Quick TOC is needed.

2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0195.html
It is initially unclear that this comparison table is complex, showing both 
correspondences and differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0.
Clarify by:
- adding an explanation in the introduction to the comparison table that 
this is a complex comparison, showing both the correspondences and the 
differences between WCAG 1.0 checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 success criteria; and
- adding an additional column to the table, identifying whether the 
correspondence shown is a parallel reference, a difference, a gap, etc.

3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0196.html
People may need to use the comparison table in very different ways, but the 
current organization of the mapping table does not easily allow for that. 
Also, some users may not initially realize the various ways it can be 
helpful, or may misunderstand it as solely as mapping table, or gap table, 
Clarify purpose & uses of the table by:
1. Adding a column for keywords, and enable multiple views of the 
comparison table, for instance:
   -- sequencing by WCAG 2.0 success criteria
   -- sequencing by WCAG 1.0 checkpoint number
   -- sequencing by level
   -- sequencing by keyword
2. Adding a few very brief use-cases as a mini-introduction, to highlight 
what this comparison table can be used for; for example:
   -- if you are currently using WCAG 1.0, and want to see what the 
corresponding provision might be in WCAG 2.0;
   -- if you are already using WCAG 2.0, but need to demonstrate 
conformance to WCAG 1.0;
   -- if you need to compare what is required under a given priority or 
level of conformance;
   -- if you need to find how a certain issue, such as color contrast, is 
handled in both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

4. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0197.html
The title "Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0" of this appendix 
is unclear; similarly, the heading of the left column is unclear.
Change the title of this appendix to: "Comparison of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints 
and WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria," and add a more explicit heading (e.g. "WCAG 
1.0 Checkpoint") to the left column.

5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0200.html
The comparison table is complex, and is consequently currently difficult to 
read with screen magnification, and also via screen reader. Simple 
linearization may not help much because of the complexity of the table.
Add extensive orientation notes to an accessible version. Check readability 
with magnification and with speech or braille output. [Note: an EOWG 
participant may send more specific suggestions.]


6. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0204.html
The format of the explanatory text following the success criteria is 
difficult to follow, as the linked text is overly marked up with underline, 
color, italics (which increase reading difficulty), and on-hover highlights.
Eliminate the italics and possibly also the on-hover highlights.

7. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0205.html
It is difficult to understand the logical relationship in success criteria 
1.1.1, because of the "one of the following" phrasing.
Use the "at least one of the following" phrasing in 2.2.1 and 2.5.3; and 
check for clarity & consistency of logical relationships throughout the 
rest of the success criteria.

8. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0206.html
The term "time-out" (also written as "timeout" in the same section) is not 
a familiar term for many readers.
Add a glossary entry for "time-out."


9. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0207.html
Each time EOWG discusses the baseline concept, there are a number of 
concerns raised about potential mis-uses of baseline, and people can think 
of a number of scenarios of potential abuse.
EOWG recommends adding a much clearer statement of the intent of baseline 
into the WCAG 2.0 TR document, so that this can be referenced in any 
debates about potential mis-uses or abuses of baseline. EOWG would be happy 
to give feedback on draft explanations of the intent.

In the discussion of baseline and conformance, it seems that there is 
potential for misuse of baseline (e.g. authors might be able to just 
declare their own level of technology). The actual/potential audience, not 
just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could reply on, 
should define baseline.
EOWG recommends that the WCAG WG re-consider the following strategies: to 
give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Web sites today, W3C 
should publish a 'reasonable/realistic' baseline recommended for a general 
audience, outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative document, with an explanation 
about why the particular baseline is recommended; and it should update this 
recommended baseline annually or periodically.

COMMENTS ON GLOSSARY (from 20060619)

The term "conformance" is not necessarily a well understood term for many 
readers, and its use in the definition of "normative" therefore makes the 
definition of "normative" difficult to understand.
Add a definition for conformance, consistent with the definition of the 
EOWG definition of "conforms,"
  to the WCAG 2.0 glossary, and reference it in the definition of "normative."

The definition for assistive technology is difficult to understand because 
it gives the restrictive before the general meaning; also, it may be too 
restrictive, in describing legacy assistive technologies (for instance, 
some screen readers now are creating their own DOM separate from the 
mainstream browser).
EOWG recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition. (Note: We think 
that this would work *because* your definition of user agent is broad 
enough to already cover some of the functions of some assistive technologies.)

Some of the Glossary items are hard to follow because of the Notes.
EOWG recommends integrating the Notes back into the main definitions, and 
linking back to the main use of the defined term in the guidelines.


14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0213.html
BUG: The caption for each table (guideline number and title) does not 
display in Opera 8
Please fix.

15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0214.html
The mouse-over highlighting color adds confusion
EOWG suggests removing it.

16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0215.html
The "L1" is unclear.
Change 'L1' to 'Level 1' etc, and add a heading of 'Level' to the first column

17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0216.html
Some readers may not realize that you can save the checklist and add 
comments to the fourth column as a report.
In the 'blurb' explaining what the checklist is for, explain that it is 
intended that you can save the document and add comments to the fourth 
column as a report. Alternatively, provide a simpler table and also a 
downloadable (RTF) document for evaluation reporting and annotation purposes.

COMMENTS ON INTRO TO WCAG 2.0 (from EOWG Teleconference on 20060519)

18 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0217.html
With regard to both the intro and the conformance section] All of the 
explanations and recommendations in the following email: 
[note: copied the mail into the comment field]

The "Quick Table of Contents" at the start of the introduction section is 
confusing; it's unclear whether this is for the section or for the whole 
Clarify that the intro section is part of a set of pages. Please see 
detailed comment and suggestions on re-wording at: 

The confusion between the Intro page & the whole WCAG 2.0 continues in the 
"Related Documents" subsection
Clarify there that "this document" refers to the whole set of WCAG 2.0 
pages. E.g., these are the things w/in WCAG 2.0, and then these are the 
things outside of WCAG 2.0 (or the WCAG 2.0 TR doc)

21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0220.html
The amount of jargon in the introduction makes it less helpful than 
possible as introductory material; for instance, ""conformance", "success 
criteria", "how to meet links",  "intent",
"sufficient techniques", "baseline assumptions."
Copyedit for increased use of plain English explanations; and/or introduce 
the jargon later in the introduction.

22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0222.html
The fourth bulleted item ("How to meet" links to information on intent..") 
is hard to parse
Re-word the fourth bulleted item for readability, for instance "Each 
success criteria contains links to how to meet that criteria"

23 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0223.html
The penultimate paragraph ("Several success criteria require...") is 
difficult to understand and contains more detail than seems necessary or 
appropriate for an introduction.
Copyedit to clarify and simplify.


24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0226.html
(Helpful detail in "Understanding WCAG 2.0." EOWG sends its compliments) 
The Introduction needs an opening statement along the lines of "this is not 
an introductory document - it is a detailed description of the guidelines 
and their success criteria" and adds a pointer to the "Overview"
document for people requiring a simple introduction.

25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0227.html
The title of "Understanding WCAG 2.0" continues to be a concern for EOWG, 
because of several possible misinterpretations.
EOWG recommends adding an exlanatory subheading to the document. 
Suggestions include:
    a. Your guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
    b. A guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
    c. A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
    d. The authoritative, encyclopaedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
    e. A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0
    f. A guide to understanding and using WCAG 2.0

26 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0228.html
  For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word summary, 
rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as "shortname".

Please add explanations of the four principles to the Understanding document.

Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 23 June 2006 04:54:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:39 UTC