W3C

List of comments on “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0” (dated 27 April 2006)

Quick access to

There are 696 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).

1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240 241-260 261-280 281-300 301-320 321-340 341-360 361-380 381-400 401-420 421-440 441-460 461-480 481-500 501-520 521-540 541-560 561-580 581-600 601-620 621-640 641-660 661-680 681-696

question comments

Comment LC-814
Commenter: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> on behalf of Deque Systems Inc (archived message)
Context: Document as a whole
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Although the term \'synchronized\' is used in the guideline 1.2, it is not used to describe any of the requirements in the various SC. Why not?
If it is a matter of detail or technique, then why has \'extended\' audio descriptions been explicitly specified against 1.2.6? (By the way I suggested do away with 1.2.6 in an earlier issue I raised.)

Proposed Change:

I think synchronized is a key word and needs to be included in the SC too.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-907
Commenter: Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> on behalf of University of Udine, Italy (archived message)
Context: Document as a whole (Nontext Content)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

is a smiley nontext content?
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-741
Commenter: Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org> on behalf of Educational Testing Service (archived message)
Context: Document as a whole
assigned to Gregg Vanderheiden
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

1.2.5 Sign language interpretation is provided for multimedia.

Why apparent bias towards sign language instead of other forms of manual communication?

Proposed Change:
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-879
Commenter: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> on behalf of DocArch - K.U.Leuven (archived message)
Context: Conformance
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Please define or point to criteria for \"high inter-rater reliability\". This is important for developing evaluation procedures based on WCAG 2.0 (especially evaluation procedures that can be repeated with the same results for the same content, although, after reading http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.htm and http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/reliab.htm, inter-rater reliability is not the same thing as test-retest reliability).

There was an action item for research on inter-rater reliability (http://www.w3.org/2005/04/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02) but I don\'t know what came out of it.

Proposed Change:
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2753: Caption in HTML 5 table
Commenter: Rabab Gomaa <rabab.gomaa@inspection.gc.ca> (archived message)
Context: Conformance
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
Resolution status:

We have many tables on the website with no captions.

WCAG success criterion 1.3.1 requires caption or summary for tables. Summary is obsolete in HTML 5.

Does this mean that data tables require caption to pass sc 1.3.1 or having a heading with a paragraph would be acceptable? Sometimes the table is preceded by a heading or heading and a paragraph that is explaining the table content.

Having a data table with no caption would still pass 1.3.1?

We migrated to HTML 5 and looking for a data tables solution that wouldn't fail later on WCAG HTML 5.

We used to rely on summary in the past and our tables do not necessary have captions.

A feedback from WCAG Working Group would be appreciated.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2754: G145: Ensuring that a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 exists between text (and images of text) and background behind the text
Commenter: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> (archived message)
Context: Technology assumptions and the "baseline" (G145)
Refer to technique G145:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G145.html
Summary of Issue: Note the following two observations:
1. Under description, the sentence "This technique relaxes the 4.5:1
contrast ratio requirement for text that is at least 18 point (if not bold)
or at least 14 point (if bold)" makes a case about the font size when text
is presented over a background. It is quite clear.
However, the following para, "If the background is a solid color (or all
black or all white) then the contrast ratio of the larger-scale text can be
maintained by making sure that each of the text letters have a 3:1 contrast
ratio with the background" does not give any indication of the font size.
What does "larger-scale" text mean in this situation? Can a font size be
used as baseline?

2. Para 3, "3:1contrast" needs a space.

Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
For #1, provide clarity on "larger-scale" text used in the scenario.
For #2, provide a space between the "3:1" and "contrast."

-Devarshi
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1281: Text-Alternatives
Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> on behalf of Vision Australia (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Bullet 1)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: "If text alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text content." Surely in this case the content has failed SC 1.1.1?

Proposed Change:

leave the second sentence out!
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-925
Commenter: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com> on behalf of IBM (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 1.2.4
Not assigned
Resolution status:

How should we classify an interactive multimedia game that is continuously drawing to a visual canvas? Is this pre-recorded or live multimedia?
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1286: LEVEL-CHANGE
Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> on behalf of Vision Australia (archived message)
Context: Guideline 1.4 (SC Levels)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: Under the new Conformance level definitions, I strongly suggest that 1.4.1 & 1.4.2 should be Level 1 and that 1.4.3 & 1.4.4 should be Level 2

Proposed Change:

reconsider the Levels the SC fall under - move them up a level
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1665
Commenter: Skip Knox <sknox@boisestate.edu> (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 1.4.1
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Augh. RGB?

Most of us use hexadecimal to set colors. That's what I've spent five
years teaching my user base. Now you give a method for determining
luminosity contrast ratios that assume we're setting colors with RGB.

Is there any chance you can also provide a method of calculation in
hex?
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1322
Commenter: Takayuki Watanabe, Makoto Ueki, and Masahiro Umegaki <nabe@lab.twcu.ac.jp> on behalf of JIS WG2 (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 1.4.2 (Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.4)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: JIS X 8341-3 also addresses the importance of volume control. It allows the users who are hard of hearing to adjust the volume of the audio. Is it unnecessary for WCAG 2.0 to require the mechanism of the audio volume control?

JIS 5.7 b) says:
<quote>
b) Sound should be controllable by users.

Information:
Hearing impaired users cannot detect that sound is being played. Also, there are cases where louder volume is preferred.

Example:
To enable users to adjust volume, play, and stop, provides controls for play, stop, and volume adjustment. When using plugins, they can be used for this purpose
</quote>
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1325: Timing cognitive
Commenter: Takayuki Watanabe, Makoto Ueki, and Masahiro Umegaki <nabe@lab.twcu.ac.jp> on behalf of JIS WG2 (archived message)
Context: Guideline 2.2 (2.2 / 3.1)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: WCAG 2.0 doesn't mention about the speed of text which is moving on the page. It is hard for people with visual disabilities and cognitive limitations to read and understand the text. Can the author use the fast scrolling text?
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1290: link-text
Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> on behalf of Vision Australia (archived message)
Context: Guideline 2.4
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: What is the difference between 2.4.4 & 2.4.8? They seem very similar.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-746: WEB-UNIT
Commenter: Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org> on behalf of Educational Testing Service (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 2.4.3
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

2.4.3 Web units have titles.

The How to Meet material seems to view Web units as pages, but the definition is really broader….

Proposed Change:
LC-625
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-497: link-text
Commenter: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 2.4.4
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

How does 2.4.8 differ from 2.4.4? How can the purpose of a link be programmatically determined?

Proposed Change:

Rewrite this sc to clarify what is required and how it differs from 2.4.4, or rewrite 2.4.4 to cover the same issues, or delete 2.4.8.
510 573 1110 1142 1290
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-499
Commenter: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 2.5.4
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Should "context-sensitive help" be defined in terms of "the task, or the step in the task, currently being performed"? This would require it to be specific to the over-all task while allowing individual steps in a task to have their own help items.

If it is better to think in terms of tasks, maybe context-sensitive help should be defined accordingly.

Proposed Change:
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-915
Commenter: Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it> on behalf of University of Udine, Italy (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 3.1.3
Not assigned
Resolution status:

with “identifying� do you mean “a mechanism is available to the user for identifying...�?
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1298: reading-level
Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org> on behalf of Vision Australia (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 3.1.5
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: Everyones I speak to has trouble with the UN definition approach

Proposed Change:

Why not just say 'X years of schooling'? Or something else equally understandable drawn from the UN definition.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-543: cognitive
Commenter: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca> on behalf of ATRC UofT (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 3.1.6
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Item Number: Success Criterion 3.1.6
Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

Is guideline 3.1.6 relevant to alphabetic langauges. I was unable to determine the meaning of this guideline as it applies to English, or other alphabetic languages. If it is relevant to alphabetic languages, examples should be provided, or it should be stated that it applies to syllabic, or orthographic languages.

Proposed Change:
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-1323: 4.1.1
Commenter: Takayuki Watanabe, Makoto Ueki, and Masahiro Umegaki <nabe@lab.twcu.ac.jp> on behalf of JIS WG2 (archived message)
Context: Success Criterion 4.1.1 (Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 4.1)
Not assigned
Resolution status:

Comment: WCAG 2.0 doesn't require validity. Can authors use UA-specific elements such as marquee, blink and so on? It is less certain on this issue through the documents.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240 241-260 261-280 281-300 301-320 321-340 341-360 361-380 381-400 401-420 421-440 441-460 461-480 481-500 501-520 521-540 541-560 561-580 581-600 601-620 621-640 641-660 661-680 681-696

Add a comment.


Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: Overview.php,v 1.46 2013-10-04 08:11:33 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org