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

EOWG:

These are our replies to comment resolutions that I submitted to the WCAG 
WG on 29 June on behalf of EOWG, following our discussion of these items 
over a number of weeks.

Thanks,

- Judy


>Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:00:56 -0400
>To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006 (1 of 2)
>
>Dear 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.
>
>We accept all your resolutions except #12 and #26. Our specific responses 
>are below.
>
>Please let us know if you have any questions on our responses.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>- 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, if the second paragraph of the definition is 
>retained, it should become a note.
>
>Please consider using the following definition instead:
>
>         "...a user agent that translates web content into a format that 
> is perceivable, operable and understandable for individuals with 
> disabilities is called an assistive technology. Assistive technologies 
> for Web content rely on services such as retrieving, parsing and 
> analyzing Web content that are often provided by mainstream user agents 
> or operating systems."
>
>In addition, please consider using the following as a replacement for Note 2:
>
>         "The distinction between mainstream user agents and assistive 
> technologies is real but not absolute. Most mainstream user agents 
> provide some features listed above to assist individuals with 
> disabilities. The basic difference is that mainstream user agents target 
> broad and diverse audiences that usually include people with and without 
> disabilities. Assistive technologies target narrowly defined populations 
> of users with specific disabilities. The assistance provided by an 
> assistive technology is more specific and appropriate to the needs of its 
> target users."
>
>In addition, we would like to submit suggestions for edits to the examples 
>which follow this definition, but are still working on those.
>
>>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
>
>At 04:38 PM 5/17/2007 -0700, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>>Comment 15:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031108.30032DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1004)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 16:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031328.228B2DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1005)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 17:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623031552.326C5DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1006)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 18:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623033122.A9E7E33201@kearny.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1007)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 19:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034120.985C247BA1@mojo.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1008)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 20:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034355.22F2C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1009)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 21:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034521.475D847BA1@mojo.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1010)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 22:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034741.C9E7647BA1@mojo.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1012)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 23:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623035437.DCE6447BA1@mojo.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1013)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 24:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623043917.B202DBDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1016)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 25:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044024.952B7BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1017)
>ACCEPT
>
>>Comment 26:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044126.B0D75BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1018)
>>Part of Item: Intent
>>Comment Type: editorial
>>Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
>>For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word
>>summary, rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as
>>\"shortname\".
>>Proposed Change:
>>----------------------------
>>Response from Working Group:
>>----------------------------
>>We have included short handles in the draft to make the success
>>criterion easier to reference.
>
>NOT ACCEPTED:
>
>Thank you for including handles in the success criteria, but we had also 
>recommended them for the guidelines themselves.
>
>>Comment 27:
>>Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623044216.4EC33BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
>>(Issue ID: LC-1019)
>
>ACCEPTED.
>
>--
>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

-- 
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 Thursday, 12 July 2007 14:08:11 UTC