- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:32:30 -0600
- To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Oops, forgot to add Wayne's comments about the conformance section. Will integrate these on Monday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007OctDec/0085.html ~Shawn Shawn Henry wrote: > > 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 > > ### > > -- Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/ phone: +1-617-395-7664 e-mail: shawn@w3.org
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2007 00:42:02 UTC