There are 7 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
question comments
substantive comments
Comment LC-2938 : Does a TM (trademark), SM (service mark), (R) (registered trademark) symbol in a company's logo need alt text?
Commenter: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> on behalf of DEQUE (archived message ) Context: Non-text Content: Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :I need to ask you a question about appropriate alt text for a logo with the letters TM (for trademark) embedded in it.
The context of the question...a State Farm logo with the registered trademark symbol after it https://www.statefarm.com/
While I know it is nit-picky...my personal interpretation is...that "Registered Trademark Symbol" has meaning and needs alt text.
I need an official W3C interpretation on this. Is alt text required for the "registered trademark symbol" or not?
Thanks,
Glenda
Proposed Change:
It would be helpful to clarify this at http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#sec14
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: Thank you for your comment. The working group discussed this and feels it is at the discretion of the content owner what text they feel is appropriate to serve the equivalent purpose for an image, including images which include trademarks, service marks, or other symbols.
There are undoubtedly circumstances when it would be appropriate to include specific information about a symbol and other circumstances where it would not be necessary, but it is up to the content owner to investigate any legal or other requirements and evaluate the appropriate interpretation of equivalent purpose. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2908 : 1.4.3 is too strict?
Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message ) Context: Images of Text: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Loretta Guarino Reid
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :In "Intent of this Success Criterion" section, it reads "Corporate visual guidelines beyond logo and logotype are not included in the exception." in the 6th paragraph.
There can be a case where a designer want to use the same colors used on logo. In such case, a designer would not have a choice to select colors to be used.
If using the color used on logo (ex. #FF0000) would result in insufficient contrast ratio, would it fail SC 1.4.3?
Even if a designer understood SC 1.4.3, he/she will avoid using different colors than #FF0000 because it could undermine the visual identity and/or corporate identity of the organization.
Also there can be a case where brand design guideline defines a set of colors to be used for any visual design on web, ad, brochure, and so on and a designer has no choice.
Proposed Change:
Is "Corporate visual guidelines beyond logo and logotype are not included in the exception." also applied to such case?
If so, should we change the colors defined in the guidelines to meet SC 1.4.3? I think it's too strict.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: The exception for logos or brand names is included because they are recognizable as an image, and it is not necessary to read the included text to recognize the brand.
This is not true for text on the rest of the page. So if the designer uses a color scheme that does not provide sufficient contrast, even if it is part of the brand design guideline, the text would fail SC 1.4.3.
The contrast ratio in SC 1.4.3 was based on studies of the needs of low vision users. It may be too strict for brand designs, but it is necessary for legibility. Perhaps the design could provide alternative conforming versions of the page via color themes. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2909 : Headings at Each Section of Content to Meet SC 2.4.1?
Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message ) Context: Bypass Blocks: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :I understand that H69 is one of the sufficient techniques to meet SC 2.4.1 and using H69 is not requred to meet SC 2.4.1.
However the sufficient technique for SC 2.4.1 should be like "Providing heading elements at the beginning of main content and repeated sections on multiple web pages." SC 2.4.1 only requires a mechanism "to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages."
Do we need a heading for a section which is not repeated on multiple web pages in order to meet SC 2.4.1?
H69 looks like a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.10 and requires authors to do more than the requirements of SC 2.4.1. And it could lead them to misunderstanding that each section on a page has to have a heading(h1-h6) in order to meet SC 2.4.1.
Proposed Change:
Move H69 to SC 2.4.10 and modify H69 to clarify the requirement of SC 2.4.1 and add it as a new sufficient technique to SC 2.4.1.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: @@change test procedure to:
1) Check that the content is divided into separate sections
2) Check that each section <phrase diff="add">on the page</phrase> starts with a heading.
Results
a) For 2.4.1 check #2 is true.
b) For 2.4.10 checks #1 and #2 are true.
Resolution: Thank you for your comment. The working group agrees that H69 can be sufficient for 2.4.10 as well as 2.4.1, and has adjusted the technique and the test procedure to clarify the test for each success criterion. Related to your question, it is not necessary to have headings at the start of every section on a page to meet 2.4.1, but even if a page provides more headings than are needed it is still sufficient for 2.4.1. A given page could address 2.4.1 with fewer headings, or through a different method entirely, but that would represent a different technique than this one. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
editorial comments
Comment LC-2910 : Avoid saying color contrast
Commenter: Education and Outreach <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> (archived message ) Context: Document as a whole
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Joshue O Connor
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Dear WCAG WG,
Please avoid the phrase "color contrast".
Some places we've found it:
* http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
* http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
Additionally, several pages include "color contrast" in the Resources listings. We wonder if it would be worthwhile to add a note there, e.g., something along the lines of what we have at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#contrast>: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminance contrast"...
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: Thanks for the comment the working group agrees that it is best to change references to 'colour contrast' to 'contrast ratio'. We will update the documents listed below:
* http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
* http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2913
Commenter: Josh Soldan <JoshSoldan@gmail.com> (archived message ) Context: in (2.4.8)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :The linked "Related Resource", 'The Sound of the Accessible Title Tag Separator', is incorrect. The proper URL for this resource is http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/title-text-separators/
Proposed Change:
The proper URL for this resource is http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/title-text-separators/
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: Thanks for the comment - we've fixed the link in the "Working-Branch-for-Fall-2014" branch of our source documents on GitHub and this fix will be part of the next public update. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2921 : Headings for link context
Commenter: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> (archived message ) Context: Link Purpose (In Context): Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Resolution status: Response drafted
Resolution implemented
Reply sent to commenter
Response status:
No response from Commenter yet
Commenter approved disposition
Commenter objected to dispositionCommenter's response (URI):
Comment :Understanding SC 2.4.4 says contextual text may be in the heading immediately preceding the link.
But SC 80 is marked as an advisory technique
(H80: Identifying the purpose of a link using link text combined with the preceding heading element)
This appears to be inconsistent. Admittedly, only JAWS is good at announcing preceding heading without moving focus from a link.
Proposed Change:
Fix: Remove reference to 'preceding heading' for determining context in understanding doc or make H80 sufficient.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: Change:
In some situations, authors may want to provide part of the description of the link in logically related text that provides the context for the link. In this case the user should be able to identify the purpose of the link without moving focus from the link. In other words, they can arrive on a link and find out more about it without losing their place. This can be achieved by putting the description of the link in the same sentence, paragraph, list item, the heading immediately preceding the link, or table cell as the link, or in the table header cell for a link in a data table, because these are directly associated with the link itself.
To:
In some situations, authors may want to provide part of the description of the link in logically related text that provides the context for the link. In this case the user should be able to identify the purpose of the link without moving focus from the link. In other words, they can arrive on a link and find out more about it without losing their place. This can be achieved by putting the description of the link in the same sentence, paragraph, list item, @@removed@@ or table cell as the link, or in the table header cell for a link in a data table, because these are directly associated with the link itself.
Resolution: Thank you for the comment - we have adjusted the text in the understanding document to reflect your suggestion.
The sentence will now read:
This can be achieved by putting the description of the link in the same sentence, paragraph, list item, or table cell as the link, or in the table header cell for a link in a data table, because these are directly associated with the link itself. Alternatively, authors may choose to use an ARIA technique to associate additional text on the page with the link. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Add a comment .