Fwd: EOWG new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May 2007 Working Draft

EOWG:

...And these are the new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May draft that I submitted 
to WCAG WG on 29 June, on behalf of EOWG, following our discussion over a 
number of weeks.

Thanks,

- Judy


>Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:19:33 -0400
>To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: EOWG new comments on WCAG 2.0 17 May 2007 Working Draft
>
>The following comments from EOWG on the 17 May 2007 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft 
>are from EOWG discussions on 8, 15, 22 and 29 June. Where possible we have 
>been specific in our suggestions, but otherwise we have tried to describe 
>particular concerns. We have also indicated several places where we may 
>send additional editorial feedback.
>
>Please let us know if you have any questions on our comments.
>
>Regards,
>
>- Judy Brewer, on behalf of the Education and Outreach Working Group.
>
>
>1. [conformance section] EOWG feels that the goal for the section on 
>accessibility supported technologies should be that the average developer 
>should be able to read the section and understand the concept; understand 
>the importance of the concept; and understand that one should be able to 
>go to a list of accessibility supported technologies.
>
>2. [conformance section] Explain clearly & simply, as part of the 
>introductory paragraph, that some technologies support assistive 
>technologies, and that these are the ones that one should use.
>
>3. [conformance section] In the first paragraph of "accessibility support 
>of web technologies" please add "Web" in front of the two uses of 
>"technologies" that do not currently have any other descriptor, so as to 
>clearly separate reference to the authors' (Web) technologies from 
>reference to the users (assistive) technologies. We suggest that this 
>differentiation be checked throughout the document.
>
>4. [conformance section] Please present the reader with a short 
>description of what accessibility supported technologies are, before 
>telling when/where they need to be used, and that the author must use 
>them. Right now the definition is doubly embedded in two other concepts in 
>the intro paragraph.
>
>5. [conformance section] Take the sentence about what this section covers 
>and put it at the very beginning of the section; then give the short 
>version of what conformance means; then say it's normative; then make sure 
>that the promised sequence matches the actual sequence.
>
>6. [conformance requirements] EOWG may have further clarification 
>questions for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this 
>section, but does not have our editorial suggestions ready at this time. 
>Our questions include whether there may be unnecessary redundancies in 
>requirements 5 and 6, or whether any of that content might potentially 
>belong in the guidelines themselves.
>
>7. [principle 1] "'Perceivable'" is neither explained nor defined here, 
>nor is there a link to an explanation or a definition. Where it is first 
>used in the introduction, the explanation is brief, and is not linked to 
>the expanded explanation in the "Understanding" document. Please explain, 
>or define, or link to such information.
>
>8. [reference] The current draft uses inconsistent terminology for 
>conformance levels (see the intro, then the conformance referencing 
>section). Please synchronize terminology.
>
>9. [referencing: support documents] This section needs simplification and 
>copyediting to clarify the meaning and eliminate redundancies; also, it 
>should be included in the supporting documents.
>
>10. [referencing] Add "or must" after "shall."
>
>11. [referencing] After "this is informative," add "Please note that the 
>following language for referencing WCAG 2.0 can be inserted into your own 
>documents."
>
>12. [referencing] If maintaining that all of Level 3 should not be 
>required, a better explanation is needed for why this is so.
>
>13. [referencing] Please simplify "That is, it is possible to require 'all 
>of Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and 
>Level 3]' be met" by turning it into an example, e.g.: "For example, 'all 
>of Level 1 and [some specific list of success criteria in Level 2 and 
>Level 3].'"
>
>14. [referencing] The 4th subprovision under the "shall" section 
>contradicts the third example, in that it implies that one can require 
>conformance to all Level 3 success criteria.
>
>15. [intro to referencing section] EOWG may have further clarification 
>questions for document editors, and/or suggestions for edits to this 
>section, but does not have our specific editorial suggestions ready at 
>this time.
>
>16. [SC 1.1.1] Consider flipping the existing sentence to: "If non-text 
>content is any of the following, then text alternatives at least identify 
>the non-text content with a descriptive text label: 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."
>
>17. [guideline 2] The difference between 2.2.2 (blinking) and 2.3.1 
>(flashing) is not clear even with the links to definitions, as the 
>definitions are mutually self-referencing and seem just like different 
>degrees of the same thing. Either differentiate more in the SC themselves, 
>or combine them.
>
>18. [SC 1.2.1] Replace "multimedia alternative to text" with "audio and/or 
>video alternative to text" since it is possible to gloss text w/ audio 
>only, or w/ silent video only (for instance, sign language) or w/ audio & 
>video together (e.g. video of talking head).
>
>19. [SC 1.3.1] Most of us had no idea what this meant, and the few who did 
>had difficulty explaining what the practical implications of this would be 
>for content development. Do you mean "semantics conveyed through 
>presentation?" Or is it the semantics about the relation between objects? 
>Either one of these, or both, would be more understandable.
>
>20. [SC 2.4.2] Do you mean the title tag or the title that goes in the H1? 
>Please clarify (even if in some non-HTML specific way).
>
>21. [SC 3.1.4] We debated this but could not agree on a common 
>interpretation. Please clarify.
>
>22. [gloss-assistivetech] Drop note 1.
>
>
>
>--
>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 14:08:13 UTC