Comment 19: distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear

While I'm not sure that they really improved the distinction between blinking and flashing... I now see more clearly the difference in intension between 2.2.2 and 2.3.1 and that they're trying to solve differenent issues.

2.2.2 - http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20071102/Overview.php#time-limits-pause 
2.3.1 - http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20071102/Overview.php#seizure-does-not-violate 

Two concerns... the linked blinking to its definition from 2.2.2 but they didn't link flashing to its definition from 2.3.1.  The only place you can get a link to the definition of flash is from the definition of blink.

Blink definition - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#blinksdef 
Flash definition - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#flash-def 

Then the wording used for the flash definition is weird...
"a pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more where the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80"

I really have no idea what that means.

- justin




******************
Justin Thorp
US Library of Congress
Web Services - Office of Strategic Initiatives
e - juth@loc.gov
p - 202/707-9541

>>> Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> 11/14/2007 11:11 PM >>>

Dear EOWG:

Please review the following draft replies to the WCAG WG regarding 
EOWG's comments on the May 2007 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft. For 
background, including the complete list of our comments and the 
complete replies from WCAG WG, please see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0073.html 

Our replies are due Monday 19 November. In order to facilitate quick 
review and reply:
* If you have additional ideas, send them to the EOWG list for 
discussion. Please be specific in your objection and in your 
suggested reply. Address each comment in a separate email and use the 
subject line: EOWG's WCAG 2.0 Comment X
* We will have some time to discuss our replies on the mailing list 
and Friday's teleconference.
* We will use a W3C "WBS" survey form to collect final comments from 
EOWG participants. Please plan time to put your final answers in the 
survey form by Monday 19 February, 3:00pm US Eastern.
* Because of the short review time, if you have replies that differ 
from those sent from EOWG, you are encouraged to submit them individually.

Note that the categories of replies below include the following:
- Accepted (and therefore not repeated in the detailed list further down);
- Accepted but with a follow-up note to the WCAG WG;
- Not accepted, and please see our follow-up comment below;
- Pending additional confirmation or review from EOWG.

An index to status of replies on comments follows. Accepted comments 
have been removed from the list below. The complete list of comments 
under discussion is available at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0073.html .

1 not fully accepted; please see our follow-up comment below
2 accepted
3 [need EOWG's confirmation of acceptance of WCAG's resolution]
4 not fully accepted; please see our follow-up comment below
5 not fully accepted; please see our follow-up comment below
6 accepted
7 not fully accepted; please see our follow-up comment below
8 not fully accepted; please see our follow-up comment below
9 accepted, and please see our note to you below
10 accepted
11 accepted, and please see our note to you below
12 accepted
13 accepted
14 [need EOWG's review of revised conformance section in 
Understanding, and confirmation of draft reply]
15 [need EOWG's review of revised conformance section in 
Understanding, and confirmation of draft reply]
16 [need EOWG's review of revised conformance section in 
Understanding, and confirmation of draft reply]
17 [need EOWG's review of revised conformance section in 
Understanding, and confirmation of draft reply]
18 accepted
19 [need EOWG's confirmation of acceptance; Sharron offered to research]
20 [need EOWG's confirmation of acceptance; Sharron offered to research]
21 not accepted; please see our follow-up comment below [but need 
EOWG's confirmation that this is still an issue]
22 [need EOWG's confirmation of acceptance; Andrew offered to research]
23 [need EOWG's confirmation of acceptance; Justin offered to follow up]
24 accepted

Thanks,

- Judy


[DRAFT REPLY TO WCAG WG FOLLOWS]

Dear WCAG WG:

Thank you all for your careful consideration of our previous 
comments. Our replies follow.

EOWG accepts your resolution of comments numbered 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 
18, 24 and they have therefore been removed from the list below.

EOWG also accepts your resolution of comments numbered 9, 11, and 
please see our notes to you on those below.

For the remaining comments, please see our detailed replies below.

Regards,

________________.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 1: LC-1001: definition of assistive technology
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0405.html 
>(Issue ID: 2270)
><...>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>We have accepted the substance of your suggestions, with some wording
>tweaks. The definition now reads:
>
>     hardware and/or software that acts as a user agent, or along with
>a mainstream user agent, to provide services to meet the requirements
>of users with disabilities that go beyond those offered by the
>mainstream user agents
<...>

EOWG reply on comment #1:
    The definition overall is now much clearer; however, we find the 
use of "services" in the definition and in note 1 to be confusing, 
and we recommend instead using "input and output," or "functionality."


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 3: accessibility-supported technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2273)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>The new language should be closer to this goal.  This is technical
>though and difficult to make clear.  If there are specific suggestions
>for wording, please forward for consideration.

EOWG reply on comment #3:
    [Pending review by EOWG] Accepted.

>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 4: use accessibility-supported technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2274)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>The Introduction section was moved to Understanding WCAG, but
>'accessibility supported' is mentioned in the introductory sentence
>(all there is) and then clearly explained in conformance requirement
>#6 which follows shortly after.

EOWG reply on comment #4:
    We are concerned that the following sentence is still difficult to parse:
"Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies 
that are not accessibility supported must also be available via 
technologies that are accessibility supported."
    We suggest that using the phrase "technologies with accessibility 
support" may facilitate comprehension here, and possible everywhere 
that the current phrase "accessibility supported technologies" is 
used. Such replacement here would yield:
"Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies 
without accessibility support must also be available via technologies 
with accessibility support."


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 5: web technologies
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2275)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>They now say  "Web content technology"

EOWG on Comment on #5:
    Thanks for the changes, but you missed one in note 4 and in note 5.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 7: reorder conformance section contents
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2277)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>A short introductory sentence provides an overview. Conformance is
>linked to its definition. The document flows from there as described.
>This is now much shorter and more straightforward.

EOWG reply on comment #7:
    [Pending EOWG review] Accepted.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 8: suggestions for conformance requirements
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2278)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>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.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Conformance Requirements 5 (now 4) and 6 (now 5) are independent.
>
>Conformance Requirement 5 talks about what is relied upon in making
>the conformance statement, while Conformance Requirement 6 is focused
>on what the non-conforming (and non-relied upon) technologies must do.
>
>Note that Item 1 and 2 have been dropped from Conformance Requirement
>6 (now 5) but the other one (3) still applies  since it is a
>'condition' under which the success criterion must apply, and not a
>success criterion itself.  Since there is only one it was merged into
>the provision itself as a second sentence.

EOWG reply on comment #8:
    [Pending review by EOWG] Accepted.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 9: define Perceivable
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2279)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>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.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>By Perceivable  we mean "able to become aware of through the senses"
>(Webster).  This is the standard meaning for the word.  To keep the
>glossary (which is already very long) from getting longer we do not
>include words that are not used in any manner other than their
>ordinary dictionary meaning.

EOWG reply on comment #9:
    You did do part of what we asked, which is to link to an 
explanation of it in the Understanding Document. This closes our 
original comment; however we might have a follow-up comment later on 
the explanation in the Understanding document.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 11: simplify this section
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2281)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>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.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We agree.  We have moved this topic to Appendix A of Understanding WCAG 2.0.

EOWG reply on comment #11:
    EOWG notes that you also clarified the presentation of these 
supporting documents in the WCAG 2.0 Introduction. This reads much 
better now; thanks, settled.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 14: All of Level 3 not required?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2284)
>
>2. [referencing] If maintaining that all of Level 3 should not be
>required, a better explanation is needed for why this is so.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>We recommend that Level AAA not be required for general web content.
>It is possible for some types of Web pages and Web sites to conform to
>all Level AAA success criteria. If the requirement were only applied
>to such content, it would be an appropriate requirement.
>
>However, since it will be impossible for some types of Web pages to
>meet this level of conformance, requiring it for general content will
>exclude some kinds of functionality from being provided on the web.

EOWG reply on comment #14:

[NOTE TO EOWG: When we discussed this last week, we could not find 
the updated conformance section on referencing WCAG 2.0. It has been 
moved to 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>. 
Based upon reading that section, in light of our original comment and 
EOWG's discussion last week, I propose the following response]
    Thank you, the revised conformance section in Understanding WCAG 
2.0 addresses our concerns.
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>
However, it is difficult to know that this information is available 
when reading the conformance section in the draft guidelines. We 
suggest that the pointer to Understanding more explicitly mention 
that guidance on referencing WCAG 2.0 is available through that link.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 15: Turn discussion into example
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2285)
>
>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].'"
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you. We have updated the draft as proposed.

EOWG reply to comment #15:
    [We could not find the updated comment when discussing this last 
week. It is in "Understanding."]
    Draft comment based on the revised Understanding section:
    Thank you, the revised conformance section in Understanding WCAG 
2.0 addresses our concerns.
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 16: contradiction between subprovisions
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2286)
>
>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.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>It is not a contradiction, since it is possible for some Web pages and
>Web sites to conform to all Level AAA success criteria. If the
>requirement were only applied to such content, it would be an
>appropriate requirement.
>
>However, since it will be impossible for some types of Web pages to
>meet this level of conformance, requiring it for general content will
>exclude some kinds of functionality from being provided on the web.
>
>We have moved the note to follow the 4th subprovision, to alert
>readers to this issue.

EOWG reply to comment #16:
    [We could not find the updated comment when discussing this last 
week. It is in "Understanding."] Draft comment based on the revised 
Understanding section:
    It appears that after being moved, the provision has since been deleted.
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>
Please clarify the status of this issue resolution.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 17: Possible additional editorial suggestions
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2287)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>We appreciate EOWG's suggestions for improving the WCAG documents.

[NOTE TO EOWG: When we discussed this last week, we could not find 
the updated conformance section on referencing WCAG 2.0. It has been 
moved to 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>. 
Based upon reading that section, in light of our original comment and 
EOWG's discussion last week, I propose the following response:
    Thank you, the revised conformance section in Understanding WCAG 
2.0 addresses our concerns.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 19: distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2289)
>
>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.
>
>Response from Working Group:
>
>We have added a definition for flash and clarified the difference
>between flash and blink both in the definitions and (in longer form)
>in the understanding document

EOWG reply on comment #19:
    [pending review by Sharron] Accepted.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 20: extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2290)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>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).
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Thank you. Good suggestion.  we have replaced "multimedia alternative
>to text" with "audio and/or video alternative to text"
>
>and fixed the definition to read
>
>*audio and/or video alternative to text*
>     media that presents no more information than is already presented
>in text (directly or via text alternatives)
>
>     Note: an audio and/or video alternative to text is provided for
>those who benefit from alternate representations of text.  Audio
>and/or video alternative to text may be audio-only, video-only
>(including sign-language video), or audio-video.

EOWG reply on comment #20:
    [pending review by Sharron] Accepted.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2291)
>
>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.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>This success criterion speaks both to semantics conveyed through
>presentation, and semantics about relationships between objects. The
>wording has been carefully worked out to encompass this without being
>overly prescriptive. The Working Group did not arrive at alternate
>language that is more clear. The Understanding document provides more
>detail and examples to clarify the scope of this success criterion.

EOWG reply to comment #21:
    Given your clarification above, we continue to feel that the 
language in this section does not effectively convey your intention 
to your audience. Please note that EOWG includes a number of 
experienced WCAG implementors and trainers, and is a sympathetic 
audience for WCAG, yet we were not able to discern the exact meaning 
of this provision even after extended discussion.
   [NOTE TO EOWG: It seems that the linked "how to meet" and 
"understanding" information has been updated substantially. Is this 
now sufficient?]


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 22: Which page title?
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2292)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>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).
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>To clarify the expected use of the page title, we have added the
>following to the Intent section:
>
>"User agents make the title of the page easily available to the user
>for identifying the page. For instance, a user agent may display the
>page title in the  window title bar or as the name of the tab
>containing the page."
>
>The sufficient techniques for SC 2.4.2 lists the use of the title
>element in HTML, but not the use of an H1 element. We do not believe
>that the use of an H1 element is sufficient by itself, since the
>heading may not be visible at all times. We have added an advisory
>technique;
>SEE ABOVE

EOWG reply on comment #22:
    [Pending confirmation from Andrew] Accepted.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>Comment 23: Please clarify
>Source: 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0408.html 
>(Issue ID: 2293)
>----------------------------
>Original Comment:
>----------------------------
>
>21. [SC 3.1.4] We debated this but could not agree on a common
>interpretation. Please clarify.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Response from Working Group:
>---------------------------------------------
>
>We believe that the definition of mechanism in the glossary and the
>explanation and examples in Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 are
>sufficient to understand what kinds of mechanisms might satisfy this
>success criterion. "Mechanism" covers both author-supplied
>functionality and user-agent or assistive-technology supplied
>functionality.

EOWG reply on comment #23:
    [Pending Justin & EOWG's confirmation] Accepted.

###

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 15:57:21 UTC