[DRAFT] Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)

[To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>]

Dear Loretta and WCAG WG Participants:

Thank you for your replies on our comments on the 2006 Last Call Working 
Draft of WCAG 2.0.

In general EOWG feels that the May 2007 draft is much improved. The summary 
is that we accept all resolutions except #12 and #26 (see email 2/2 for #26).

Our specific responses are below. Please let us know if you have any 
questions on our responses.

Thank you,

- Judy Brewer, on behalf of the Education and Outreach Working Group.

>Comment 1:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215340.6AFF4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-988)
ACCEPT

Comment 2:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622215712.6C60DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-989)
ACCEPT

>Comment 3:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622220019.9A084BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-990)
ACCEPT

>Comment 4:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622221000.50F0FBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-991)
ACCEPT

>Comment 5:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622223644.5BE6866364@dolph.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-993)
ACCEPT

>Comment 6:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623015205.CA1F647BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-994)
ACCEPT

>Comment 7:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020038.4285C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-995)
ACCEPT

>Comment 8:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623020602.D5AB747BA1@mojo.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-996)
ACCEPT

>Comment 9:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023212.54ED733201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-997)
ACCEPT

>Comment 10:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623023433.A625F33201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-998)
ACCEPT

>Comment 11:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024606.035F8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-999)
ACCEPT

>Comment 12:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024721.819AEDAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1001)
>Part of Item:
>Comment Type: substantive
>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>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).
>Proposed Change:
>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.)
>----------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>----------------------------
>We have changed the order of the items in the definition to make the
>restriction less confusing. We feel it is important to keep the
>restriction that assistive technology depends on a host user agent so
>that the success criteria require support for external assistive
>technology and can't just be satisfied by mechanisms that are internal
>to the user agent. However, we have added a note that host user agents
>may provide direct support for users with disabilities.

NOT ACCEPTED; the revised definition is as difficult to understand as the 
original. The explanation "user agents are user agents in the general 
sense" does not help comprehension. Also, P2 should be a note.
Please consider the following instead:

[....insert conclusion from discussion on 29 June of AT definition]

>Comment 13:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030816.BDC9933201@kearny.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1002)
ACCEPT

>Comment 14:
>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623030938.87E46DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>(Issue ID: LC-1003)
ACCEPT



-- 
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-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 04:41:15 UTC