This document:Public document·Annotated document·View comments·Search comments·Add a new comment·Send replies to comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
Other specs in this tool
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2513
There are 7 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
Will SC 1.4.1 be applied to a stacked bar chart?
For example, a stacked bar chart shows two items by using two different colors. There are the graph legends near the chart which explains what is represented by each bar and color. The patterns are not used.
It might depend on the colors used in the chart. If the colors are black and white, will SC 1.4.1 be applied to the image of the stacked bar chart?
In that case, the color differences are used to convey information within non-text content. However the patterns are not necessarily needed to convey the same information in a manner that does not depend on color. Because black and white has sufficient contrast ratio and brightness difference.
Does SC 1.4.1 require the authors to include patterns to any combination of colors?
If yes, could you explain the reason why the patterns are needed for black and white?
Need an answer from WCAG WG in order to harmonize JIS and WCAG 2.0.
Flash animation is embedded in a HTML web page. The animation has five screens. It starts automatically, lasts more than five seconds, and is presented in parallel with other content. It also has five buttons to stop the animation. When each button receive focus, the movement of the animation will be paused.
Is this considered to be "a mechanism for the user to pause" the animation?
The point is that it might not be obvious for users to understand that the buttons are the mechanism.
Need an answer from WCAG WG to harmonize JIS with WCAG 2.0.
We now have additional information on generally referencing and linking to WAI technical documents. Ideally we'd spend some time to integrate these better; however, I don't think it's worth the time. Instead I propose one little addition to this appendix. Thanks. (I added a a link to this appendix from that document.)
Add to the beginning: For additional guidance, see <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/linking.html">Referencing and Linking to WAI Guidelines and Technical Documents</a>.
I am a bit unclear about the note on http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/media-equiv-av-only-alt.html, that says /Note: /A text equivalent is not required for audio that is provided as an equivalent for video with no audio information. For example, it is not required to caption video description that is provided as an alternative to a silent movie.
> Surely this does not assist deaf-blind people? I would have thought that a text equivalent would be needed.
Providing an audio description of video only creates another file (the audio description), that needs a text equivalent
Dear WCAG WG,
There have been some issues raised around WCAG 2.0's coverage of the needs of people with low vision. At a minimum, coverage under Guideline 1.3 needs to be clarified in the Understanding document.
Additionally, we have been re-looking closely at Guideline 1.3 and Success Criterion 1.3.1 along with their corresponding sections in the Understanding document and feel that it is important to revisit this issue.
So this is a brief comment to request that we have further discussion, before the updated version of the Techniques and Understanding documents are published.
Specifics to follow. Thanks in advance.
The "How to meet" document offers four alternative options to meet SC 1.4.4 (Resize Text), one of them simply "G142: Using a technology that has commonly-available user agents that support zoom". F69, on the other hand, describes the failure of clipping , truncating or obscuring text when applying text-only magnification to 200%. It seems that the How to meet" document should link support for page zoom to a (perhaps more modest) support for text-only zoom. Just affording page zoom (this works nearly always without any extra effort) does not prevent the failure 69 when scaling text only.
Change logic in the "How to meet" document: G142 alone is not good enough. In addition, text-only resizing must also work to ensure a pass of F69.
Under Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility Support" list item 1 says: Accessibility support of Web technologies varies by environment
- In a company where all employees are provided with particular user agents and assistive technologies, Web technologies may need to only be supported by those user agents and older assistive technologies.
- Content posted to the public Web may need to work with a broader range of user agents and assistive technologies.
I think the "older" is incorrect in the first bullet. I think it should be deleted. (because the point is that if users are known to have certain AT, then you do *not* have to support older AT, yes?)
To further clarify, consider adding it to the second sub-point.
...Web technologies may need to only be supported by those user agents and assistive technologies.
Content posted to the public Web may need to work with a broader range of user agents and assistive technologies, including older versions.
Add a comment.