Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
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.
Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply |
---|---|---|---|
LC-2938
Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> on behalf of DEQUE (archived comment) |
|
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. |
tocheck |
LC-2908
Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived comment) |
|
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. |
tocheck |
LC-2909
Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived comment) |
|
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) |
|
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 |
tocheck |
LC-2913
Josh Soldan <JoshSoldan@gmail.com> (archived comment) |
|
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) |
|
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. |
tocheck |
LC-2962
Ted Drake <ted_drake@intuit.com> (archived comment) |
|
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 |
tocheck |