Disposition of comments for the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Single page view

In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.

In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.

CommentorCommentWorking Group decisionCommentor reply
LC-2938 Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> on behalf of DEQUE (archived 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?


Proposed Change:
It would be helpful to clarify this at http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#sec14
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.
LC-2908 Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived 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.
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.
LC-2909 Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived 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.
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. tocheck
LC-2910 Education and Outreach <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> (archived comment)

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"...
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
LC-2913 Josh Soldan <JoshSoldan@gmail.com> (archived 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/
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. tocheck
LC-2921 Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> (archived 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.
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.
LC-2962 Ted Drake <ted_drake@intuit.com> (archived comment)
If the placeholder text is required to meet 4.5:1 contrast ratio, should the compliance be required by developers (modify with CSS) or should the burden rest with browser manufacturers?
Browser vendors do have some responsibility for how they render author generated content by default. UAAG helps to indicate to user agent vendors to them how to achieve this. The most relevant UAAG Guidelines and success criteria are likely to come under Guideline 1.8 (See 1.8.8 Customize Viewport Highlighting for example). [1] [2]

However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the author claiming WCAG conformance to ensure that the success criteria have been met. When user agents conform to UAAG 2.0, many of the success criteria, such as this one, are met automatically and the author does not need to take specific action. When user agents do not meet this automatically, authors must take specific action in the content. This varies according to the accessibility support of the user agents expected to be used by the audience.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#sc_188

Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: index.html,v 1.1 2017/08/11 06:39:46 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org