- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:38:04 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <022601c64cfd$917d9080$ef64d946@NC6000BAK>
Looking through and closing out issues All of these are no changes. Look at 1839 however to be sure we did that. Thank Gregg --------------- 1358 Testability of guidelines Testability of guidelines: Computer programs will never be able to test accessibility guidelines satisfactorily so should it not be recommended that web pages are checked by computer programs *and* (not or) people who understand these guidelines? It is utopic to expect different people to obtain identical results when testing for accessibility - there will always be a degree of interpretation. CLOSE WITH We changed text to avoid this mis-statement. Tests can be done by computer programs or by people who understand this document --------------- 1360 Conformance claim 2 seems very complicated Complex issue with multiple topics Is there not an easier way (and maybe less accurate way if need be) to express this? A 'URI pattern' is defined in terms of a 'regular expression', which is not even the commonly used definition of a regular expression. This makes the guidelines hard to understand for anyone but specialists in a very narrow technical field. The same applies to the definition of 'delivery units': this is quite technical. What is meant with 'content negotiation'? Why should conformance claims be transmitted in the HTTP header? our Web applications claim AA conformance, but they do not reside at any specific URI, but rather at many URIs where users have installed the software The applications exist as archived bundles of software, that when unpacked and installed on a user's Web site, will conform with WCAG AA specifications. A Web application distributed by CD may not have an associated URI at all, but may otherwise be conformant. The #2 requirement should also include something like "...or a software version identifier where a URI is not available." CLOSE WITH - We have changed the text to make it easier. - Delivery unit is also gone. - Content negotiation is a regular web term and is used in its standard meaning. That would be hard to do a primer on here. - Language re transmittal in HTTP header is removed - RE downloads. Our guidelines only cover content as defined in our glossary - RE downloads that install to a server - until it is on server it isn't web content. The manufacturer can advertise that it is AA conformant when installed properly. No need to claim til installed. --------------- 1835 GL 1.4 should require legible contents when using high contrast settings Most users who rely on very high contrast simply activate a relevant setting in their user agent, or more commonly in the underlying Operating System. There should be a requirement that content is legible under such circumstances. CLOSE WITH Discussed at the 26 January 2006 Teleconference [1]: This would appear to require authors to know what operating system features would be for users (on different operating systems). We do not know how to write techniques for something like this. --------------- 1839 GL 3.2: require autoscroll and refresh to be controlled by user Pages which auto scroll and refresh should be at the instance of the user in case the user is using screen reader. CLOSE WITH I think this is covered under 2.2.3 (Content can be paused by the user unless the timing or movement is part of an activity where timing or movement is essential.) Automatic refresh is covered in techniques that related to SC 2.2.1, 2.2.5 and 3.2.5. We should be able to close this issue once these techniques are approved by the WG. [JUST CHECKING _ DONE NOW?? IF SO THEN CLOSE] --------------- 810 Need solution for correct pronunciation of acronyms and abbreviations Level 1 success criteria, # 2 - The real problem with acronyms and abbreviations is how the speech synthesizers speak the acronym, not so much how it is expanded. A subcommittee/WG needs to be established to identify the various scenarios and apply some logic as to what the author should do, what the AT/browser should do, what the synthesizer should do, and what the user should do. For example, the author can expand the acronym VoiceXML to "voice extendable markup language", and the user can choose to expand to hear the full expansion, but how does the user get to hear Voice X.M.L. instead of "voiceexmuhl"? How the acronym is pronounced should be part of aural cascading style sheets, which is not well defined in this scenario. CLOSE WITH The working group has added a provision for adding pronunciation where it is needed to determine meaning. The group does not feel that requirements should be added beyond that. --------------- 1752 individual words or phrases that have become part of the primary language of the content? Several comments to the effect that screen readers will mispronounce. Like Touche' e.g. I don't understand the reason for this exception: words like "check-in" are often used in Italian, but unless they are pronounced with the English phonemes, they are highly distorted (namely "check-in" would be pronounced as "kek-in") CLOSE WITH If the words are part of the natural language, then they should appear in dictionaries and should also be covered in pronunciation rules and exceptions. If they are borrowed but not part of natural language then they should not fall in this category. --------------- 1798 SC 3.1.5 should depend on intended audience educational ability Whilst I understand the sentiment behind 3.1.5 ( When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level, one or more of the following types of supplemental content is available), surely it is taking this a little too far and the intended audiences educational ability should come into the frame as opposed to having to provide a range of limited equivalent content without much if any perceivable gain in a majority of areas. CLOSE WITH The working group felt that the proposed approach was best - but set conformance so that not all level 3 success criteria needed to be implemented in order to secure triple-A conformance. --------------- 1813 SC 3.1.5 not an adequate replacement for WCAG1 14.1 "use clear and simple language" Long post. But key issue is here: I am particularly concerned that WCAG 2.0 does not appear to contain an adequate replacement for the WCAG 1.0, Checkpoint 14.1, "Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content (Priority 1)". WCAG 2.0, Success Criterion 3.1.5 is probably the nearest equivalent. CLOSE WITH The working group worked long and hard to figure out how to create meaningful yet testable techniques for this area. Special groups worked on it several times. The current 3.1 success criteria are the best that could be developed and the best that came in from all field comments. --------------- 1861 Require use of familiar vocabulary None of the following subsections mention using vocabulary that is familiar to average people. Benchmarking vocabulary against the language used everyday by the public is a better measure of ease of understanding than the readability tests mentioned in section 3.1.5. CLOSE WITH The working group looked at this and other methods for measuring readability and felt that the measures proposed were the best, testable approach. --------------- 1875 SC 3.1.5: spoken version won't help with vocabulary issues Criterion 3.1.5 suggests that if text requires advanced reading ability, a spoken version of the text content could be made available. However the likely cause of the problem would seem to be a user's limited vocabulary, and a spoken version will not significantly alter the user's vocabulary. CLOSE WITH This is true. But several approaches are proposed. Not all will help all people. But understanding spoken language is usually much better than ability to read so it was listed as one of the approaches. --------------- 1696 Need better glossary for "captions", "transcripts", and "subtitle CLOSE WITH New definitions have been created that are more international. --------------- 1721 delivery, perceivable unit need real-life examples CLOSE WITH No longer use Perceivable units or delivery units. --------------- 1766 Missing glossary entries "Variation in presentation of text" should be defined in the glossary. 2.2.1: Define "time-out" in the glossary. 2.5.4: "Context-sensitive help" should be defined in the glossary. 3.2.2: "Input field" needs to be defined in the glossary. 4.2.3: Define "role", "state" and "value" in the glossary. Here, as elsewhere, I am pointing out terms crucial to the interpretation and application of the success criteria which aren't linked to glossary entries, but which are technical terms that stand in need of definition. 4.2.4: Define "explicitly associated" in the glossary. 4.2.6: Need definitions for all of the items mentioned here. (content, structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state, and relationships) CLOSE WITH Variation in presentation of text, role, structure, content are defined The following terms no longer used : state, selection, explicitly associated Other terms are used in traditional sense with examples in How to meet. --------------- 1845 "language of the surrounding text" Felix Sasaki says: "Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases in a language that is different from the language of the surrounding text." How does the notion of "surrounding" fit to text structured with markup languages, e.g. attributes describing element content, or tables with rows in various languages like: Language Text German Das ist ein Beispiel. English This is an example. CLOSE WITH Use the text before it and after it in natural reading order. --------------- 1848 definition of "URI pattern" Felix Sasaki says: Definition of "URI pattern": We propose to define this pattern in terms of IRI, with a reference to the IRI specification. CLOSE WITH At this time we are going to use URI in the standard. --------------- 1854 Understanding WCAG2 needs more technology-specific examples Robust technology-specific examples must be provided for each success criterion. Common failures (plural) must be identified by the working group. Ideally, non-W3C technology examples would be provide for each. CLOSE WITH Examples now provided in Understanding WCAG 2.0 and in techniques Common failures provided for each sc We are currently not listing proprietary non-W3c technologies for complex reasons. --------------- Gregg ------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our list discussions <http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/> http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/ The Player for my DSS sound file is at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:39:39 UTC