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


Please note any changes or corrections on this draft by close of business, 
US Pacific Time, on Tuesday 24 January, by replying to me and to the EOWG 
list <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, as I will forward them at that time to the WCAG 
WG comments list.

Thank you,

- Judy

Following are EOWG comments on the 23 November 2005 WCAG 2.0 draft 
documents, as discussed in EOWG teleconferences on 9 and 16 December 2005, 
and 6 January, teleconferences.

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 review questions into a 
list (in the paragraph starting with "The WCAG WG encourages feedback...") 
and/or highlighting the review 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. On the single-file HTML version, the TOC appears mid-way through the 
document, instead of just before the Introduction.


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

7. ["Related documents" first paragraph] "Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is 
normative." Please clarify whether the Checklist is also normative, as many 
people may use this as their primary reference.

8. ["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 


9. [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."

10. ["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.

11. ["Assumptions/baseline"] Several issues.
(a) *Important*: Please make it very clear that the examples of baselines 
for given contexts are hypothetical, not actual.
(b) Please diversify your examples to include other sectors in addition to 
the government, such as private corporations, educational organizations, 
and member-based organizations.
(c) The best place to explain the diveristy may be in the paragraph before 
the examples, then make the examples more generic, e.g. "entity" not 
"government," and "user" not "citizen."
(d) For example 3, the EOWG questions whether this is a realistic 
proposition, even as a hypothetical example.

12. ["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." -- After reviewing the 
levels of the success criteria, it appears to be more accurate and clearer 
to say: "Some guidelines do not contain success criteria at every level."

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

14. ["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.


15. [Overall comment for the guidelines section] 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.

16. [4.1.1] "Delivery units can be parsed unambiguously and the 
relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous." EOWG 
feels that this is tough to understand, even for people with strong 
technical background, and could become a focal point for people concerned 
about understandability of the document.  However, some EOWG participants 
felt that the phrase was the most precise and therefore the best choice. 
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 could 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 
recommends that the term might benefit from a small joint discussion 
between representatives of WCAG WG and EOWG, and would be willing to help 
with such a discussion.

17. 1.1.6 -- Based on the definitions of conformance levels in WCAG 2.0, we 
are unclear why this success criteria is level 3 rather than level 2 [Sorry 
-- cannot access log to add detail on this item at the moment; will add later]


18. [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 success criteria. If the glossary 
definitions are normative, should the detailed information be built back 
into the success criteria, given that those are the essential core that 
will be referenced by organizations requiring conformance with WCAG 2.0? If 
not normative, should the detailed information be instead built into the 
"how to meet" section of the "Understanding" document? Examples of where 
normative technical data appears to be included in glossary definitions: 
"general flash threshold," "link," "luminosity contrast ratio," "red flash 
threshold," and the second part of the "event handler" description. EOWG 
offers assistance on splitting or clarifying these as needed.

19. ["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 appear to EOWG to provide information of 
specific relevance to WCAG. If this information is of specific relevance, 
perhaps that could be clarified.

20. ["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 would recommend replacing this with "change of language" 
except that that does not work in the context that it was used in the 
guidelines. An alternative would be to the term "foreign" from 3.1.2, and 
drop this entry from glossary, and instead add an example for 3.1.2.

21. ["Delivery unit"] The glossary is still difficult to understand, and 
does not leave the reader much clearer than they were after reading the 
original text in its original context. It is not helpful to see the note 
stating that this definition is copied verbatim from another group's 

22. ["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."

23. ["Keyboard Interface"] The definition is difficult to understand and 
needs clarification. It says "connecting a keyboard" even though there may 
not be a keyboard involved. Perhaps one could say "connecting an input device."

24. ["Live audio-only" and Live video-only"] EOWG had difficulty 
understanding both phrases. Some in the group recommend 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.

25. ["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.

26. In addition, please see eight items for discussion and coordination at 
top of page http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/glossary/2005-12-13 Note that, 
for some of the items, alternative definitions are proposed for the WCAG 
WG's consideration, as these might harmonize better with similar 
definitions used in other parts of WAI. For other terms, these are flagged 
as potentially benefitting between WCAG and EOWG.


No comments on the Checklist.



*In general this document seems that it will be very helpful.* However, 
EOWG participants expressed concerns about the title and the organization 
of the document:

27. [Title of document] EOWG had a lot of discussion about concerns about 
the title of the document, and concerns about how the title might be 
misconstrued. We could not come to agreement on a different title to 
recommend, as we don't have a full understanding of what the WG plans for 
this document. 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.
For instance, other titles to consider:
- The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
- A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0

29. [Organization of document] Concerns about the organization of the 
document included the following. Again, without more information about the 
intent of the document, we were not sure what to recommend, but suggestions 
- whether too much essential information necessary for conformance had been 
moved to this document, and whether some should be re-integrated back into 
the primary WCAG 2.0 document so that it will be present in the main 
referenceable document;
- 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 
Recommendation). We realize that this would be a significant change, but 
wanted to make sure that the WG was aware of the approach that those groups 
had taken with their overview, guide, and primer.
- whether the material in "Understanding WCAG 2.0" should 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 Sunday, 22 January 2006 21:07:04 UTC