- From: <gian.sampsonwild@families.qld.gov.au>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:26:49 +1000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi,
I've had a read of the new working draft and have a number of comments.
Please note text in double quotation marks ( " ) are directly from the
document. My comments in bullets underneath. Please note these are my
comments for Guideline 1 only - will make comments on other guidelines over
the next few days.
"Conformance Claims
If the above conformance levels are used, the rules regarding conformance claims would be:" etc etc
This section should specify where this conformance claim should be made - on every page on the site? only on the home page? on the about us page?
"Sites that conform to WCAG 1.0
Sites that currently conform to WCAG 1.0 that want to shift towards WCAG
2.0 will want to capitalize on past accessibility efforts. A qualified
conformance statement could allow them this flexibility. For example, a
conformance claim might include the following statement, 'Materials created
or modified before 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 1.0. Materials created or
modified on or after 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 2.0.' "
Will we be specifying a date where ALL content must conform to WCAG 2.0
(ie. when WCAG 1.0 becomes obsolete)- regardless of when it was created?
Even if this date is two years after the release of WCAG 2.0, it will
give developers a date to work towards.
Once again, where will this information be provided?
"Perceivable. Ensure that all content can be presented in form(s) that can
be perceived by any user - except those aspects of the content that cannot
be expressed in words. "
instead of "cannot be expressed in words" what about "are abstract"
"Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people with
disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by bicycles, people
pushing strollers, and people in wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible Web
content is usable by a variety of people with and without disabilities. For
example, people who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions
like operating in a noisy environment or driving their car where their eyes
are busy. Likewise, a search engine can find a famous quote in a movie if
the movie is captioned."
Would read better if: "For example, people who are temporarily operating
under constrained conditions like operating in a noisy environment or
driving their car where their eyes are busy would also benefit from an
accessible site. Likewise, a search engine can more easily find
information from an accessible site, such as a famous quote in a movie,
if that movie is captioned."
"Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content that can be expressed in words,
provide a text equivalent of the function or information the non-text
content was intended to convey.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if:
-non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent
explicitly associated with it.
-non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive
label provided as its text-equivalent.
---The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author
intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended
information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if:
-the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same
function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents
all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the
non-text content) "
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if:
- (presently no additional criteria for this level.)
Doesn't determining whether "The text equivalent should fulfill the same
function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it
presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same
function of the non-text content). " rely on firstly on "the
text-equivalent [having] been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the
same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it
presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same
function of the non-text content)". This would mean fulfilling the
Level 2 checkpoint before fulfilling the Minimum requirement.
I believe we should add under Level 3 for this checkpoint: "A number of
alternative equivalents are provided for non-text content". For
example, a movie can be captioned, but the information can also be
provided as a text transcript.
Examples are provided at the end of each checkpoint. I believe we should
specify WHICH of the levels it complies with: Minimum, Level 2, or Level 3.
I suggest that we take a single situation and provide solutions if
complying with Minimum, Level 2 and Level 3. For example, Checkpoint 3.2:
Provide multiple methods to explore sites that are more than two layers
deep. For the situation of a site that provides information for health
workers dealing with a violent patient the following examples could be
provided:
Minimum: Sitemap provided and linked from homepage. Sitemap includes a
link to all pages.
Level 2: Policy document on how to deal with situation is split via the
different categories of the site (eg. "how to deal with a violent drunk
person" is under "Alcohol and Drugs", "how to deal with a violent
intellectually disabled person" is under "People with disabilities". It
is also provided as a single page with the entire policy document
Level 3: This page (larger than 50,000 words) would have anchor links at
the top of the document to each section (eg. How to deal with a violent
drunk person, How to deal with a violent intellectually disabled
person), and under each of these sections further links would be
provided such as ("How to tell if a drunk person will become violent",
"How to calm down a drunk person", "What drugs should be used to calm
down a drunk person") etc.
"Example 2: a data chart. (short label + longer description)
A bar chart compares how many widgets were sold in June, July, and August.
The short label says, "Figure one - Sales in June, July and August." The
longer description identifies the type of chart or graph, provides a
high-level summary of the data comparable to that available from the chart
or graph, and lists the data themselves. "
I believe the short label (ALT tag) should read "Figure One - Sales of
Widgets in June, July and August"
"Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent
presentations.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.2 at the Minimum Level if:
- an audio description is provided of all significant visual information in
scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the sound track
alone.
- all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned
- descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they
represent.
- if the Web content is real-time video with audio, real-time captions are
provided unless the content:
- If the Web content is real-time non-interactive video (e.g., a Webcam of
ambient conditions), either provide an equivalent that conforms to
checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., an ongoing update of weather conditions) or link to
an equivalent that conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., a link to a weather
Web site).
- if a pure audio or pure video presentation requires a user to respond
interactively at specific times in the presentation, then a
time-synchronized equivalent (audio, visual or text) presentation is
provided. "
I think the word "time-dependent" is misleading- it makes it seem like
an interactive presentation, as opposed to a synchronised-media
presentation
Instead of the first two success criteria, why can't a text transcript
be provided that describes the actions and sounds in the media
presentation? How is this not an equivalent? For an example of what I
mean see: http://www.scopevic.org.au/what_ad.html. The text transcript
seems to have been relegated to Level 3, where I believe it should be in
Minimum, and other success criteria moved to Level 2 or 3. One reason I
believe this is because it is easier to read a text transcript than to
watch a media presentation, and also because it is easier to create a
text transcript than an accessible media presentation - and we want
developers to embrace these guidelines.
I suggest we also add the ability to stop the presentation and start it
from the point where it was stopped (I know this is covered in another
checkpoint, but I think it's worth repeating)
"exception: if content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource that
complies to broadcast requirements for accessibility (independent of these
guidelines), the rebroadcast satisfies the checkpoint if it complies with
the other guidelines. "
does this mean that if there is a web broadcast of the TV news and it
complies to TV accessibility requirements, then it conforms to these
guidelines?
"Checkpoint 1.4 Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning, and labels.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at the Minimum Level if:
- the structural elements present have a different visual appearance or auditory characteristic than the other structural elements.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at Level 2 if:
- the structural emphases are chosen to be distinct for different major display types (e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio playback).
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.4 at Level 3 if:
-content is constructed such that users can control the presentation of the structural elements.
-alternate presentation formats are available to vary the emphasis of the structure. "
what does "the structural elements present have a different visual
appearance or auditory characteristic than the other structural
elements" mean?
I believe that the success criterion: "content is constructed such that
users can control the presentation of the structural elements." would be
a Minimum requirement. Isn't this the success criterion which allows
users to turn off style sheets and increase the size of text etc?
"Checkpoint 1.5 Ensure that foreground content is easily differentiable
from background for both auditory and visual presentations.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at the Minimum Level if:
- text content that is presented over a background image or pattern is
implemented using mechanisms that allow the user to display the text
without the background image or pattern.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at Level 2 if:
- when text content is presented over a background image or pattern, the
text is easily readable when the page is viewed in 256 grayscale.
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.5 at Level 3 if:
- text content is not presented over a background image or pattern OR the
text is easily readable when the page is viewed in black and white (no
grayscale).
- audio content does not contain background sounds OR the background sounds
are at least 20 db lower than the foreground audio content.
- text content is not presented over a background image or color OR the
colors used for the text and background or background image pass the
following test:"
I believe we should add to Minimum level "the user is provided with
instructions on HOW to display the text without the background image" -
as the majority of users won't know what to do
Isn't Level 3, Success Criterion 1 " text content is not presented over
a background image or pattern OR the text is easily readable when the
page is viewed in black and white (no grayscale)" the same as Criterion
3: "text content is not presented over a background image or color OR
the colors used for the text and background or background image pass the
following test:"?
For Level 3, Success Criterion 2: "audio content does not contain
background sounds OR the background sounds are at least 20 db lower than
the foreground audio content.", I would add "OR it is possible to play
the audio content and background sounds separately" - I know this may be
difficult to do, but I think it should be included as an option
Cheers,
Gian
Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>@w3.org on 30/04/2003 03:22:15
Sent by: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
cc:
Subject: New WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Published to TR
Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030429/
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
=============================================
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the
recipient(s) only. It may contain privileged or confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
that relies on it.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete the message.
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has
been checked for the presence of computer viruses.
Department of Families provide no guarantee that all possible viruses
have been detected and cleaned during this process.
=============================================
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 05:48:45 UTC