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

Hi Shawn & All,

Looking good. Sorry that I was not able to join you for the 
discussion Friday morning. My only follow-up comments are on:

- Comment 21: semantics conveyed through presentation:
I believe that our original comment was that the intent of the 
provision was not clear. It now appears that our comment is that we 
disagree with the intent of the provision now that is has been 
clarified, though perhaps I misunderstanding the new comment as 
written below. I think that it is important to maintain a consistent 
EOWG role of commenting on the understandability of the provision 
rather than the technical merits of the provision, though EOWG 
participants are free to comment on the technical merits. Would it be 
possible to rephrase this along the following lines: "If the intent 
of the provision is XYZ as you have explained to us, we suggest 
rephrasing this for greater understandability as follows: "...." 
Please note though that, given this clarified meaning of the 
provision, several EOWG participants now disagree with this 
provision, and will send their comments separately."

and...

- Comment 23: Please clarify ("mechanism"):
On this one I believe that, unless we specifically say that it is 
*inadequate* to have to look up both the glossary and the 
Understanding examples in order to have an idea what this is 
referring to, we will continue to get the same response we've been 
getting from them:

>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.

In other words, rather than just saying "We still have difficulty 
with this one" I think we should say something like "We believe that 
this success criteria is less understandable when read on its own 
than many of the other success criteria, and -- regardless of 
whatever information may be available in the glossary and 
Understanding document -- would benefit from clarification of the 
provision itself. (Otherwise it is at risk for being ignored, or 
rewritten by people adopting these guidelines in a way that might 
contribute to fragmentation.) For instance, it could be reworded as 
follows: ___________"

Perhaps the parenthetical sentence should be left out, unless last 
Friday's discussion specifically covered that ground.

I've left in the original text of our comment #21 and #23 text below 
for reference.

Thanks,

- Judy


>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>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 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 Monday, 19 November 2007 19:26:28 UTC