[DRAFT-2-] EOWG's replies to WCAG WG resolutions of EOWG comments on May 2007 Draft of WCAG 2.0

Dear EOWG:

Based on the discussion in the EOWG teleconference today, I have updated draft replies to the WCAG WG on EOWG's comments on the May 2007 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

If you have any comments on these, please send them to the EOWG list before 3:00pm US Eastern time Monday 19 February. 

Please review in particular the replies below that are refined some more since our discussion this morning, or require additional followup:
- Comment 4 use accessibility-supported technologies
- Comment 14 All of Level 3 not required?
- Comment 19 distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear
- Comment 20 extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only
- Comment 21 semantics conveyed through presentation?
- Comment 22 Which page title?

Regards,
~Shawn

[DRAFT REPLY TO WCAG WG FOLLOWS]

Dear WCAG WG:

Thank you for your careful consideration of our previous comments, as provided in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Nov/0038.html

[@@@ like a lot of your changes! especially conformation section and Introduction...]

EOWG accepts your resolution of our comments numbered 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, and thus these are not included below.

For the remaining comments, please see our replies below.

Regards,
Shawn Henry, EOWG Chair
For EOWG http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 LC-1001 definition of assistive technology:
The definition overall is now much clearer; however:
- we find the use of "services" in the definition and in note 1 is confusing, and we recommend instead using "input and output," or "functionality"
- we recommend removing the last "the" so it reads: "...go beyond those offered by mainstream user agents"


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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."

[@@ EOWG Review documents to confirm our suggestion to use "technologies with accessibility 
support" throughout... (then Shawn clarify in comment above the scope of this change)]


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 reply on Comment 5 web technologies:
Thanks for the changes. You missed some in Note 4 and in Note 5.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 All of Level 3 not required?:
Thank you, the revised Appendix A provides a satisfactory explanation. <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/appendixA.html>
However, we are concerned that this is important information that people may not find, as many people likely will not read Appendix A. Consider repeating it elsewhere or putting a link to it in a place where it is likely to be see by all  -- perhaps with "Understanding Levels of Conformance" at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071102/conformance.html#uc-levels-head


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 distinction between blinking and flashing still isn't clear:
We have additional feedback on this that we will write up and send as soon as possible.
[ACTION Sharron, Liam, or Shawn (anyone else?) to write up something more on this based on Justin's email and the EOWG teleconference discussion, see:
http://www.w3.org/2007/11/16-eo-minutes#comment19 ]


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 extend alternative to text to audio-only or video-only:
This does not seemed to be changed consistently. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ has
- 1.1.1... (5) a media _alternative to text_
- 1.2.1... media is an _alternative to text_
- Glossary... audio and/or video alternative to text 


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 semantics conveyed through presentation?:
We debated the scope of SC 1.3.1 and what is meant by "information". There was some concern that this is too broad.

Additionally, we note that all of the sufficient techniques deal with structure, and perhaps what one might call relationships. And none of the sufficient techniques address information other than structure or relationships. Therefore, some people were uncomfortable including "Information" in the SC. Perhaps this SC should be 1.3.1 Structure and Relationships: Structure and relationships...

We came up with some specific use cases where we couldn't tell the applicability of this SC, and will send those to you as soon as possible. [ACTION: Liam & Wayne]


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 Which page title?:
This resolution does not address our comment for those people who do not know that the HTML title element is displayed in user agents. However, we did find the clarification by drilling down to the techniques example. Therefore, we accept closing this comment; however, we have an additional suggestion: Consider putting at the top levels "pointy brackets" around title, that is: <title>. Suggestions include:
- the technique H25: Providing a title using the <title> element (HTML)
- putting an example at the top of Understanding SC 2.4.2
- under Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.2 put at the top an example of <title...> in HTML

Rationale: In colloquial use, many people may call the <h1> the page title. Some people might not even know about the HTML title element. Putting <title> will clearly differentiate it from <h1> for those who know HTML. Putting it at the top levels will make it clear right away instead of making them drill down to the example in the technique.


>----------------------------------------------------------
>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 Please clarify SC 3.1.4:
We still have difficulty with this one. Can SC 3.1.4 be simplified to: "The expanded form or meaning of abbreviations is available." ?

For background, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0078.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0084.html

###

Received on Friday, 16 November 2007 21:00:13 UTC