Re: Comments on WCAG 2.0 through Guideline 1.3

I had a good friend, Gill Williamson, 
who wrote a calculus book where every 
formal definition was preceded by a 
"sloppy definition" (Gill's term). 
 This worked well and made the formal 
stuff go down a lot better.

Wayne


On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:15:00 -0400
  "Justin Thorp" <juth@loc.gov> wrote:
> 
> After a more exhaustive review, I 
>also had these comments.  I hope to 
>send more soon.
> 
> *Introduction*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro 
> "Although some of the accessibility 
>issues of people with cognitive, 
>language, and learning disabilities 
>are addressed by WCAG 2.0, either 
>directly or through assistive 
>technologies, the WCAG 2.0 guidelines 
>do not address many areas of need for 
>people with these disabilities. There 
>is a need for more research and 
>development in this important area."
> 
> Okay so I read this and my first 
>thought was, what kind of research 
>and development is happening?  Is the 
>W3C involved with it?  Will it become 
>WCAG 2.1?  What are WAIs plans?  Can 
>we point to this type of info?
> 
> *WCAG 2.0 Supporting Documents*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-related-docs 
> Within the introductory paragraph to 
>this section, we skirt around the 
>edges of saying that this document 
>isn't for developers.  Can we just 
>say that?   Tell the developers if 
>you're looking for practical advice 
>then you're not going to find it here 
>and you should look in X,Y, and Z 
>supporting documents.
> 
> *Important New Terms Used in WCAG 
>2.0*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms 
> I have a really bad habit of 
>skimming and not reading what I see 
>online.  For the most part my brain 
>has a hard time reading the long 
>winded definitions they have of the 
>new terms.  Could they pull out a one 
>line summary definition of the term, 
>bold it, and have the rest be extra 
>explanatory info?  This would help me 
>skim.
> 
>For example, the meat of the Advisory 
>Techniques definition is...
> 
> may enhance accessibility [but do 
>not] qualify as sufficient techniques 
>because they are not testable, are 
>not sufficient to meet the full 
>requirements of the success criteria, 
>and/or are good and effective 
>techniques in some circumstances but 
>not effective (and therefore 
>sufficient) in others  
> 
> *SC 1.1.1 - Media, Test, Sensory*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#text-equiv-all 
> I've read this sentence half a dozen 
>times and I'm still not sure what it 
>means.
> 
> "Media, Test, Sensory: If non-text 
>content is multimedia  ,  live 
>audio-only or live video-only 
>content, a test or exercise that must 
>be presented in non-text format   , 
>or primarily intended to create a 
>specific sensory experience  , then 
>text alternatives at least identify 
>the non-text content with a 
>descriptive text label."
> 
> *SC 1.1.1 - CAPTCHA*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#text-equiv-all 
> So according to " text alternatives 
>that identify and describe the 
>purpose of the non-text content," the 
>ALT text for my CAPTCHA should 
>identify the purpose of what my 
>CAPTCHA is trying to accomplish?  For 
>example, would the ALT text would be 
>"This image is to test that the user 
>is not a computer but a human" ?
> 
> *SC 1.2.1 - Captions (Prerecorded)*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#media-equiv-captions 
> "multimedia alternatives to text 
>that are clearly labeled as such."  
> 
> I'm not sure what a "multimedia 
>alternative to text" is.  After 
>reading the glossary definition 
>(which I don't normally read), I'm 
>still not sure what it means.
> 
> *SC 1.2.3  - Captions (Live)*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#media-equiv-real-time-captions 
> Instead of using the term multimedia 
>to talk about audio and video, can we 
>just say audio and video?   When i 
>think of multimedia, I think of more 
>then just audio and video so when I 
>hear about captioning multimedia its 
>a bit ambiguous.
> 
> *SC 1.3.1 - Info and Relationships*
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/Overview.html#content-structure-separation-programmatic 
> "Information and relationships 
>conveyed through presentation"
> 
> What would be an example of this? 
> I'm not sure what its talking about. 
> It's pretty ambiguous.  I'm assuming 
>people should be able to read the 
>concepts in this document and be able 
>to understand them without reading 
>the supporting material.  WCAG 2.0 
>should be able to stand by itself and 
>give good high level advice.
> 
> ******************
> Justin Thorp
> US Library of Congress
> Web Services - Office of Strategic 
>Initiatives
> e - juth@loc.gov
> p - 202/707-9541

Wayne Dick PhD
Chair Computer Engineering and 
Computer Science, CSU, Long Beach
Coordinator of Academic Technology 
Accessibility, CSU System

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 17:43:58 UTC