- From: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 23:08:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
"Bugs" in the 24 March 1999 Version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines This memo highlights key "bugs" in the 24 March 1999 version of the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines." Additional bugs and suggestions are described in my revision of the 24 March 1999 guidelines document. The revision is available (temporarily) at: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm ===== Bug-1. The concept of "equivalent" is incomplete. Importance: Extreme Description: The overall concept of "equivalent" is probably the most important concept of the document. Yet I believe that without the change, the concept of "equivalent" will remain vague. Action Performed: Refined definition of "equivalent". See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#equivalent-def Further Action Suggested: Replace old language with new. Ease of Correction: Very easy === Bug-2. The definition of "equivalent" is incomplete without a concept of "communication element". Importance: Extreme Description: I think that the concept of "communication element" is very important. It has to encompass all the things listed in checkpoint 1.1. The term communication element is an essential foundation for the definition of equivalent. The term makes clear that we are not talking about "HTML elements." Action Performed: Added a new term called the "communication element". See the definition of "communication element": http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#communication-element-d ef I also replaced the phrase "non-text elements" with "non-text communication elements". I think that this change is extremely important. I did this because (1) The former was and is undefined and the latter is now defined.; (2) Several of the things that were called non-text elements looked like "text" (scripts, ASCII art, etc.) so the simple reference to "non-text elements" was confusing. Further Action Suggested: Add the provided definition to the glossary. Make a few related changes noted in main revision. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-3. The term "text equivalent" is vaguely defined. Importance: Extreme Description: This is probably the most important refinement of the revision. The characteristic of being able to be rendered in several different ways - auditorially (synthesized speech), tactually (braille), and visually (visually-displayed text) -- was mentioned in the previous 3/24/99 version (in the body of the document but not the definition of text equivalent). But this revision makes the feature the one that distinguishes it from non-text equivalents. (A parallel contrast is found in the new distinction between "text communication elements" and "non-text communication elements.") If this cannot be addressed editorially, then I ask that it be discussed on the list or wherever else necessary. Action Performed: Refined the definition of "text equivalent". See the definition of text equivalent: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#text-equivalent-def Further Action Suggested: Replace old language with new in the glossary and make a few other changes as indicated in the revision. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-4. The term "non-text equivalent" is improperly defined. Importance: Extreme Description: This is another very important refinement. Essentially, a non-text equivalent is an "equivalent" that it is not a "text equivalent." The previous definition of non-text equivalent did not provide such a clear distinction. If this cannot be addressed editorially, then I ask that it be discussed on the list or wherever else necessary. Action Performed: Revised the definition of "non-text equivalent". See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#non-text-equivalent-def Further Action Suggested: Replace old language with new in the glossary and make a few other changes as indicated in the revision. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-5. The term "alternative equivalent" is redundant. Importance: High Description: I eliminated the term "alternative" from the term "alternative equivalent" since the latter phrase is redundant. "Equivalent" is adequate by itself. Also, the term is "alternative" is not defined, except by context. (The word "alternative" seems fine in other usage.) Action Performed: Removed the "alternative" from the term "alternative equivalent" Further Action Suggested: Make edits as provided. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-6. Document uses of the word "description" without making clear its special meaning. Importance: High Description: The revision reduced reliance on undefined terms such a "video description", "auditory description"; these terms will tend to confuse people, especially if they are not defined in the glossary. They are not, to my knowledge, necessary. I tried the use defined terms and to get the same message across. For example, I found that the defined terms "equivalent" was often helpful. Action Performed: Reduced reliance on undefined uses of the word "description" Further Action Suggested: Make edits as provided. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-7. The introduction to guideline 1 is inconsistent with the refined definitions. Importance: High Description: NA Action Performed: Provided a revised introductory section for guideline 1 to make it consistent with the revised definitions above. See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#revised-guideline-1-int ro Further Action Suggested: Use the provided language. Ease of Correction: Very easy == Bug-8. Checkpoint 1.1 needs refinement. Importance: Extreme Description: Note that is recently underwent a revision and therefore might be expected to require some editing. As noted, the reference to "synthesized speech" as requiring a "text equivalent" would not be comprehensible without further explanation. Action Performed: Revised the wording of checkpoint 1.1 Here is my current suggestion: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#suggested-revision-chec kpoint-1.1 Here are some earlier versions. They have some comments not in the most recent version. http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#revision-2-checkpoint-1 .1 http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#revision-1-checkpoint-1 .1 Here is an even older version with heavy comments: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#commented-checkpoint-1. 1 Here is the original (3/24/99) version: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#old-3-24-99-checkpoint- 1.1 Further Action Suggested: Make the provided changes. Note that any reference to "synthesized speech" as a non-text communication element would need to be explained if the group feels that it is important to include. Ease of Correction: Moderately easy. Should be reviewed by several members of the working group. There are a few questions raised that should be addressed. == Bug-9. Checkpoint 14.2 mistakenly makes reference to equivalents "to text". Importance: Extreme Description: This is a clear factual error. Action Performed: Provided revised wording. (I also made other edits that should be considered.) See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#equiv-to-text-bug Further Action Suggested: Make the provided changes. Ease of Correction: Very easy. == Bug-10. The possibility of synchronizing text equivalents for video was not acknowledged in checkpoint 1.3 Importance: Very High Description: The old version of 1.3 reads: "For each movie, provide an auditory description of the video track and synchronize it with the audio track. [Priority 1]" Action Performed: Revised checkpoint 1.3 and gave it a split priority. http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#checkpoint-1.3 Further Action Suggested: Easy. This one should be reviewed and discussed. The idea proposed was discussed briefly but received inadequate consideration. Ease of Correction: Easy. == Bug-11. The word "visual" is used to describe non-text elements, even though text is usually rendered in a visual manner. Importance: Moderate Description: NA Action Performed: Reduced reliance on the word "visual". Generally, I have tried to reduce reliance on the word "visual" when referring to things like graphics and video. The problem is that it is sometimes intended as a contrast to text, yet text can also be "visual." If the editors think that it is important to use the visual, I recommend that they define it early in the body of the document. Further Action Suggested: Make provided changes. Ease of Correction: Easy == Bug-12. The need for text equivalents for ASCII art was cited in two checkpoints (1.1 and 1.5). Importance: High Description: This is a small redundancy in the checkpoints. Action Performed: Deleted Checkpoint 1.5 http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#checkpoint-1.5 Further Action Suggested: Make suggested deletion. Ease of Correction: Very Easy == Bug-13. The description of the relationship between the terms "assistive technology", "screen reader", and "user agent" is not consistent throughout the document. Importance: High Description: This is a fairly clear factual mismatch. See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#assistive-technology Action Performed: I have not tried to resolve this. Further Action Suggested: The editors should pick one explanation and use it throughout the document. Ease of Correction: Easy. == Bug-14. The guidelines document does not claim a conformance level. Importance: High Description: The guidelines document does not claim a conformance level for itself. Action Performed: Added a conformance claim. See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#conf-claim-for-wcag-doc Further Action Suggested: Review and approve language. Ease of Correction: Fairly easy. This should be reviewed by Working Group members. == Bug-15. The document fails to follow checkpoint 4.2 on acronyms and abbreviations. Importance: High (essential for obtaining triple-A rating). Description: NA Action Performed: Problem noted. One or more acronyms were expanded in the body of the text. Also another example was suggested. See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#abbreviations-and-acron yms Further Action Suggested: Fix them. I think that it would be an important lost opportunity to fail to claim a triple-A rating and do whatever it takes to make sure that it sticks. Ease of Correction: Fairly easy to somewhat difficult == Bug-16. The document does not say how to handle conformance ratings for inaccessible primary pages that have accessible alternative pages. Importance: Moderate to High Description: NA Action Performed: Provided an explanation. See: http://etsr.digitalchainsaw.com/wcagpub/r990324a.htm#alt-page-conformance Further Action Suggested: Verify that this is the desired location for this information. Approve. Ease of Correction: Easy ============================= Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D. Development Scientist Educational Testing Service ETS 12-R Rosedale Road Princeton, NJ 08541 (W) 609-734-5615 (Fax) 609-734-1090 E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 1999 23:41:12 UTC