[DRAFT] Second capture of draft EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0


In the following draft, please note the multiple locations where there is 
"**EOWG" at the start of a comment -- that means that we have remaining 
questions to discuss in our 6 January 2006 teleconference.

- Judy

Following is a SECOND DRAFT of EOWG comments on the 23 November 2005 WCAG 
2.0 draft documents, as discussed in EOWG teleconferences on 9 and 16 
December 2005.

Please note that with the exception of our comments on the normative 
glossary entries, the majority of these comments are editorial in nature.

The documents that EOWG reviewed include:
         A. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/
         B. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixB.html
         C. http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
         D. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.phpb



1. It's not sufficiently clear in the abstract that the success criteria 
are what one needs to conform to. We suggest adding something simple, 
straightforward, and difficult-to-miss up front in the abstract, such as: 
"The WCAG 2.0 success criteria are what one must conform to in order to 
meet the guidelines."


2. Though the content of this section will change some with each subsequent 
draft, it is valuable information for reviewers. Given this, it would be 
helpful to clearly state the status in the first paragraph following the 
boilerplate paragraph, e.g.: "This document is a Public Working Draft made 
available for community review" followed by the current contents of 
paragraphs 3 & 4, rolled together ("Publication as a WD does not imply..." 
and "The WCAG WG intends...")

3. For future drafts, we recommend breaking out the questions into a list 
(in the paragraph starting with "The WCAG WG encourages feedback...") 
and/or highlighting the questions, so that they do not become lost in the 
rest of the text, given the importance of the feedback process.


4. There needs to be a "next" link at the bottom of the table of contents 
so that the reader will not come to what looks like a dead end.


5. [Third paragraph] The list of what WCAG 2.0 includes is missing "Checklist."

6. ["Related documents" first paragraph] "Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is 
normative." Please clarify whether the Checklist is also normative.

7. ["Related documents"] Though much clearer than in earlier drafts, the 
Introduction is still somewhat confusing. We recommend making more 
distinction between the list of what's included in "this document" e.g. 
WCAG 2.0 at the top of the "Introduction" section, and the list of 
"informative documents." Just re-iterating "other" in the lower section 
might help, e.g. "Currently, these other informative documents include:" 
Also, the bolding on the document links is distracting; we suggest removing 


8. [Whole section] The Conformance section here is not really 
introductory-level material, yet it is part of the Introduction; it's very 
in-depth and essential information on conformance, with strong bearing on 
the how the guidelines can be normatively applied. People new to Web 
accessibility will most likely still need a true "introduction" to 
conformance, inotherwords a quick & simple "heads-up" for why conformance 
is even an important consideration for Web content accessibility, plus a 
quick preview of some initial concepts that will be used in the more 
complete explanation of conformance. Please consider adding a true intro to 
conformance in the "Introduction," and break out the existing in-depth 
conformance info into a separate section from the "Introduction."

9. ["Assumptions/baseline"] To increase the cross-disability diversity of 
the examples "(Assistive technologies include screen readers, screen 
magnifiers, on screen and alternative keyboards, single switches, and a 
wide variety of input and output devices that meet the needs of people with 
disabilities)", add voice recognition.

10. ["Assumptions/baseline"] *Important*: Please make it very clear that 
the examples of baselines for given contexts are hypothetical, not actual.

11. ["Note" (immediately following the description of level 1, 2, 3 success 
criteria)] "Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and 
others do not contain level 2 success criteria." -- It would be more 
accurate and clearer to say: "Some guidelines do not contain success 
criteria at every level."

12. ["Delivery unit"] See comments in "GUIDELINES" and "GLOSSARY" sections 
on delivery unit.

13. ["Authoring Tools"] While EOWG appreciates the need to help build 
awareness of how WCAG relates to other WAI guidelines and resources, as 
currently written this section does not seem to fit well in the 
Introduction. We do not have a specific recommendation at this time on how 
to improve it, but would support finding a better way to integrate this 
rather than entirely removing it.


**EOWG Please check the two questions here** 14. [Overall comment for the 
guidelines section] The navigation and transition into this section is 
better than in previous versions, but still confusing for some people. 
[*EOWG -- we need to clarify what/why.*] When you click on the "how to 
meet" links, it is unclear that you are going to a specific location within 
the "Understanding" document because of the size & delay in loading that 
document. [*EOWG -- please confirm that this was the problem that we 

15. [4.1.1] "4.1.1  Delivery units can be parsed unambiguously and the 
relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous." -- 
this is tough to understand, even for people with strong technical 
background. EOWG was unable to come up with a better suggestion, but 
perhaps taking a common word and defining it precisely in the context of 
WCAG would be preferable to using such an obscure term as "delivery units." 
"Parsed unambiguously" also creates problems in interpretation, and perhaps 
it should be clarified that this pertains to syntax not semantics.

**EOWG are there really no other comments on anything in the "guidelines" 
section of WCAG 2.0 WD?**


**EOWG Please check, I have revised this comment** 16. [Overall comment on 
Glossary] The glossary is in some cases used for more than giving a 
description or definition of a word or phrase, it provides in-depth 
information about how a certain principle is applied in a guideline, or how 
to conform to a guideline or success criteria. If the are normative, should 
the detailed information be built back into the success criteria, which is 
the essential core that will be referenced by organizations requiring 
compliance to WCAG 2.0? If not normative, should the detailed information 
be built into the "how to meet" section of the "Understanding" document? 
Examples: "general flash threshold," "link," "luminosity contrast ratio," 
"red flash threshold," and the second part of the "event handler" description.

17. ["Emergency: a sudden, unexpected situation or occurrence that requires 
immediate action to preserve health, safety or property"] EOWG recommends 
removing this item from the glossary as it is a commonly used term, and the 
definition here does not provide information of specific relevance to WCAG.

**EOWG Please reconsider this comment in the original context of the 
document** 18. ["Foreign passages or phrases"] The term "foreign" does not 
capture the common situation of multilingualism in many countries, where 
another language than the primary language of the text is not necessarily 
"foreign." EOWG recommends replacing this with "change of language." 
[**EOWG However, that does not fit back in the original context well: 
"3.1.2  The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the 
content can be programmatically determined." Other suggestions?]

19. ["Delivery unit"] The glossary link should be helpful, however the 
linked-to definition is still difficult to understand. It is not helpful to 
see the note stating that this definition is verbatim copied from another 
group's definition.

20. ["Information conveyed by color" and "Information that is conveyed by 
color"] One of these entries must be a typo. Also, we are unclear why this 
phrase appears in the glossary, rather than in a "key terms" section in 
"Understanding WCAG 2.0."

**EOWG Please re-clarify why we said that the definition was ambiguous...** 
21. ["Keyboard Interface"] The definition is difficult to understand and 
needs clarification.

**EOWG Please re-examine our comment in light of original context...** 22. 
["Live audio-only" and Live vide-only"] EOWG recommends considering the 
phrases "audio-only live presentation: and "video-only live presentation" 
because they more clearly describe certain kinds of presentation. Also, in 
the description of "live audio-only," the second time 'only' is redundant.

23. ["Lower secondary education level and Primary education level"] Rather 
than trying to define these terms, which despite using a UN definition are 
so different in different cultures, EOWG proposes looking at scales of 
literacy levels rather than educational years.

**EOWG discussion and approval** 24. In addition, please see eight items 
for discussion and coordination at top of page 


[#] [*EOWG: Are there really no comments at all on the Checklist?*]



In general this document seems very helpful. However, EOWG participants 
expressed concerns about the title and the organization of the document.

[Title of document] EOWG had lots of discussion about concerns about the 
title of the document, and concerns about how the title might be 
misconstrued. Concerns included:
- the title of the document should better convey that this document is 
essential to read; "Understanding" implies something more reflective and 
less essential to read.
- the title of the document may unnecessarily reinforce the notion that 
WCAG 2.0 is incomprehensible.

Other titles to consider:
- The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
- A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0

[Organization of document] Concerns about the organization of the document 
- whether too much essential information necessary for conformance had been 
moved to this document, and some should be re-integrated back into the 
primary WCAG 2.0 document, so that it will be present in the referenceable 
- whether the "Understanding" document should itself be on a W3C 
Recommendation track, similar to some other document suites such as OWL 
(see "OWL Web Ontology Language Overview" and "OWL Web Ontology Language 
Guide", both W3C Recommendations) and RDF (see "RDF Primer," a W3C 
- whether the material in "Understanding WCAG 2.0" should in fact be broken 
up yet further, into more modules.


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, 6 January 2006 05:32:44 UTC