Commenter: Andrew Arch
Email: andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org
Affiliation: Vision Australia
Date: June 2006
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #1
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: Authoring Tools
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 1 says "as a result authoring tools WILL play an important role ..." - implying a future role for authoring at some time in the future. Authoring tolls paly an important role NOW.
6) Proposed Change: change wording to "as a result authoring tools play an important role ..."
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #2
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: Authoring Tools
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 2 talks about ATAG 1.0 and ATAG 2.0 in relation to the current date. This sentence will date rapidly depending on the relative releases of WCAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0.
6) Proposed Change: change wording to reflect the 'current' ATAG release - possibly by specifying ATAG 1.0 release year and just saying that ATAG 2.0 is due for release in 200x (x = 6/7/8??)
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #3
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: New Terms
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: the term 'web unit' needs some examples about when the term 'web page' may not apply
6) Proposed Change: add some examples to "..may not apply" such as 'webcast' or 'multimedia object'
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #4
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) 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
6) 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
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #5
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 3 - "even conformance to all three levels will not make web content accessible to all people". Some guidance needs to be provided as to what else is required to make the content accessible to all - OR who is not included in WCAG 2.0
6) Proposed Change: additional references/pointers are required
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #6
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: Note 1
4) Comment Type: T
5) 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.
6) Proposed Change: address the contradiction
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #7
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 4 - "When people who understand WCAG 2.0 test the same content using the same success criteria, the same results should be obtained with high inter-rather reliability". More than just an understanding of WCAG 2.0 is required - these people also need an understanding of how PWD interact with the web, with or without assistive technologies.
6) Proposed Change: add something extra to the qualifications that WCAG 2.0 testers are required to have to obtain the same results.
Also suggest changing "high inter-rater reliability" to "high inter-tester reliability"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #8
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Note (para 5) - reads like an 'out' - could be taken to give developers the option of using any technique they deem to be accessible, regardless of how a PWD uses the web
6) Proposed Change: Strengthen/change the Note to make it clearer what a developer is expected to do. No concrete suggestion.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #9
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: intro paras
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 2 - User agents not only "help in retrieving and rendering Web content", but also in interacting with web content
6) Proposed Change: change sentence to "help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #10
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Choosing baseline technologies
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: para 1 - "assume" is dangerous - they need to "know" the technologies "are" supported.
6) Proposed Change: change sentence from "authors need to know what technologies they can assume will be supported by"
to "authors need to know what technologies are supported by"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #11
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Choosing baseline technologies
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 2 - "browser" is used - should it be "user agent"?
6) Proposed Change: consider changing sentence "since some users many have user agents that support them"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #12
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Who sets baselines
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: para 1 - I didn't understand "customers" setting baselines - for a large organisation doing it's own development, the concept of its 'customers' setting the baseline is ridiculous
6) Proposed Change: opening sentence may need clarification
Also - 'governmental' does not seem right, should it just be 'government'?
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #13
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: Who sets baselines
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Examples of scenarios do not seem realistic - what happened to Banks, News sites, Supermarkets, etc providing private services online or selling goods online?
6) Proposed Change: more examples are needed - or relegate the examples to the "About Baseline" accompanying document
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #14
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Technology assumptions and the baseline
3) Part of Item: general
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: 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, for instance: "requires CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2." The actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.
W3C/WAI should consider setting realistic excample baslines for 'everyday' websites in developed/LD countries.
6) Proposed Change: Some possible strategies include:
a) to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Internet sites
today, W3C should publish a 'reasonable/realistic' baseline recommended for a general audience;
b) update this 'recommended' baseline annually;
c) place the 'recommended' baseline outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative document;
d) provide an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #15
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Conformance levels and the baseline
3) Part of Item: #3 AAA
4) Comment Type: T
5) 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.
6) Proposed Change: change from 50% to "100% unless not applicable"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #16
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Para one is all abut working group process - leave out
The second para in this section opens with stuff about W3C (working group) process - it doesn't seem to belong here at all
6) Proposed Change: Reconsider this whole section - TR readers don't need to know about the workings or history of the working group.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #17
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 (Non-Normative)
3) Part of Item: Comparison Table
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: Some screen readers do not recognise addition levels of | within a data table.
6) Proposed Change: Split Comparison table into a series of tables at each | row. Also better for printing when browsers support CSS 'keep with next' approach in print stylesheet.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #18
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Introduction
3) Part of Item: opening
4) Comment Type: t
5) Comment: para 1 says that WCAG 2.0 makes web content available to a wide range of disabilities, including "blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning difficulties, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, and others". It seems that learning difficulties and cognitive limitations are not addressed to any significant extent, in fact even less than WCAG 1.0. It seems the emphasis is even more on 'blindness and low vision' and 'limited movement'. This may be because the strong move to testability, but given that this is the case, then lets not kid everyone (or no-one) that WCAG 2.0 address all disabilities.
6) Proposed Change: change wording to leave these out at this stage. Seriously consider the next task for the working group to be to properly address the needs of these groups with supplement or addenda to WCAG 2.0 (or release as a WCAG 2.1)
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #19
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Guidelines
3) Part of Item: general
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Many SC seem out of place at their specified levels. It seems many SC Levels have not been reconsidered since the November 2005 release where the levels related to 'coding', 'design/appearance' and 'additional'. As this is no longer the basis for the Levels, then the SC need to be more closely re-examined as to the appropriate level they should fall under.
6) Proposed Change: re-examine all SC in the light of the April 2006 Conformance Level definitions (cf Nov 2005 Levels definitions)
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #20
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.1.1
3) Part of Item: bullet 1
4) Comment Type: Q
5) Comment: "If text alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text content." Surely in this case the content has failed SC 1.1.1?
6) Proposed Change: leave the second sentence out!
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #21
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.1.1
3) Part of Item: bullet 3
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: "If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities."
6) Proposed Change: "If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being ?accessed? by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities."
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #22
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.2
3) Part of Item: levels
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: It is too easy to fail SC at Level 1 - most organisations I have worked with will not go to this length in most cases, hence will never be able to claim even "A" conformance. In fact, on most Government and corporate sites I have worked with, the provision of a transcript and/or a script gives all the information needed to substitute for the multimedia
6) Proposed Change: Level 1 should have SC along the lines of "provide a transcript if spoken words only and no action" and "provide a script including the dialogue if video wit activity"
SC 1.2.1 & 1.2.2 should be moved up a level, and all other SC reconsidered as to the appropriate level.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #23
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.3.4
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: "variations in presentation of text can be programmatically determined." - yes, a graphical browser can display italicised text, but not much, if any, AT can determine its existence.
6) Proposed Change: reconsider/clarify/strengthen this SC, or drop the last part.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #24
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.4.1
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: After playing with the luminosity algorithm for some time now, selected colour combinations are still almost unreadable - eg the algorithm allows blue-on-blue and orange-on-red, both combinations are very difficult to read by anyone. For an example see http://www.recsport.sa.gov.au/. IMHO, the colour-difference aspect of the old draft colour contrast algorithm needs to be reintroduced. For colours schemes that pass luminosity, but fail colour difference, see some of the combinations on http://juicystudio.com/services/coloursaferatio.php?background=003 and related pages.
6) Proposed Change: add a colour difference aspect into the colour contrast SC
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #25
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 1.4
3) Part of Item: SC levels
4) Comment Type: Q
5) Comment: Under the new Conformance level definitions, I strongly suggest that 1.4.1 & 1.4.2 should be Level 1 and that 1.4.3 & 1.4.4 should be Level 2
6) Proposed Change: reconsider the Levels the SC fall under - move them up a level
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #26
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.2.1
3) Part of Item: bullet 3
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: 20 seconds may well not be long enough to 'hit any key' for some people with severe physical or motor disabilities. Also, what form does the warning take? It needs to be accessible to all as well!
6) Proposed Change: drop this bullet
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #27
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.2.5
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: This should be a level 2 SC - for many people with reading difficulties, or using AT, reading a page is a time consuming exercise, and page refreshes may not allow them to read to the end.
6) Proposed Change: move this SC up a level & consider strengthening it WRT content refreshing automatically
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #28
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.4
3) Part of Item: levels
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Under the new Conformance level definitions, I strongly suggest that 2.4.3 should be a Level 1 SC & that 2.4.5 should be a Level 2 SC
6) Proposed Change: adjust the levels of 2.4.3 & 2.4.5
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #29
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.4
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: Q
5) Comment: What is the difference between 2.4.4 & 2.4.8? They seem very similar.
6) Proposed Change:
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #30
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.4.3
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: title alone will not make a page understandable - they need to be clear and understandable, and unique (within the site or subsite)
6) Proposed Change: reword 2.4.3, e.g. "Web units have understandable/clear and unique titles."
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #31
1) Document Abbreviation: TD
2) Item Number: 2.4.1
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: currently just "Providing skip links to enhance page navigation" - this needs to be specified as a visible means of being able to identify and utilise the ability to skip links
6) Proposed Change: Strengthen this technique so that sighted, but physically disabled, people can utilise the link
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #32
1) Document Abbreviation: WD
2) Item Number: 2.4.4 & 2.4.8
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: the current wording is hard to comprehend - why not use the simpler wording from WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.1?
6) Proposed Change: Simplify the language.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #33
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 2.5
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: The Guideline says "Help users avoid mistakes ..." - none of the SC appear to address this aspect. They all seem to relate to the second part "... make it easy to correct mistakes that do occur". Surely recommendations such as linear form design, clear and understandable labels, placing examples before the form control, providing instructions, etc, would address the first part.
6) Proposed Change: add some SC to address "Help users avoid mistakes"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #34
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 3.1
3) Part of Item: levels
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: What is the point of having 3.1.1 at Level 1, but 3.1.2 at Level 2? My screen reader will then just read the entire page in the web unit language!
6) Proposed Change: Move 3.1.2 to Level 1
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #35
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 3.1.2
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: E
5) Comment: needs a qualifier
6) Proposed Change: change wording to "The natural language of each passage or phrase in the Web unit can be programmatically determined when it differs from the natural language of the web unit"
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #36
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 3.1.2
3) Part of Item: Note
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Why is a word different from a phrase?
6) Proposed Change: Drop the Note!
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #37
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 3.1.5
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: Q
5) Comment: Everyone I speak to has trouble with the UN definition approach
6) Proposed Change: Why not just say 'X years of schooling'? Or something else equally understandable drawn from the UN definition.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #38
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: 3.2.2
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: 3.2.2 says no change of context "beyond moving to the next field in tab order" - for non-visual browsers, these may mean they miss out on important aspects of the content without even knowing about them. Very dangerous!
6) Proposed Change: Drop the words that are in the brackets.
-------------------------------------------------
COMMENT #39
1) Document Abbreviation: W2
2) Item Number: Appendix D
3) Part of Item:
4) Comment Type: T
5) Comment: Several WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that are still very important for some people with disabilities are missing from WCAG 2.0:-
Checkpoint 1.5 (text equivalents for image map links) - important for people with some learning difficulties (some people are text oriented, others are graphics oriented)
Checkpoint 3.4 (relative units) - important for visually impaired people (and others) with varying display resolutions
Checkpoint 5.5 (data table summaries - describing the table structure) - important for screen-reader users
Checkpoint 10.5 (separating links visually) - acknowledged as important for some people with cognitative disabilities
Checkpoint 13.8 (front loading) - important for many people with reading difficulties
Checkpoint 14.1 (clear language) - important for many people with reading difficulties; also the related SC are now Level 3 (cf P1 in WCAG 1.0)
Checkpoint 14.3 (consistent presentation) - important for many people with reading difficulties, visual impairments, and cognitative disabilities
I acknowledge that some of these may not be machine testable, but they are human (consensus) testable.
6) Proposed Change: Add these Checkpoints back in as WCAG 2.0 SC.
-------------------------------------------------
|