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-741
Commenter: Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org> on behalf of Educational Testing Service (archived message ) Context: Document as a whole
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Gregg Vanderheiden
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 :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:
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [EDITORZ]
Discussed 06 July 2006
resolution: accept LC-741 as proposed
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html
SEVERAL EMAILS BACK AND FORTH.
HERE ARE THE MOST RECENT
How's this?
We suggest (actually, it's your suggestion, Eric) that "sign language" be defined separately from "interpretation."
Current wording:
sign language interpretation
translation of spoken words and other audible information into a language that uses a simultaneous combination of handshapes, facial expressions, and orientation and movement of the hands, arms, or body to convey meaning
Note: Although some languages have a signed counterpart, most sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated to the spoken language of the same country or culture.
Suggested wording:
Sign language -- a visual language using combinations of movements of the hands and arms, facial expressions, and body positions to convey meaning.
Interpretation into a sign language -- the translation of one language, generally a spoken language, into a sign language.
Note: Most sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated to the spoken language(s) of the same country or region.
Gregg,
We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We have been caught up in travel, proposal, and other things and have not gotten back to this. Within the next day or two we expect to provide to you our suggestions for:
1. A revised definition of sign language interpretation
2. A definition of sign language
Thanks!
- Eric
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:03 PM
To: Loew, Ruth; Hansen, Eric
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 - manual communication
Thanks Ruth,
That is exactly where we ended up too.
Thanks much for your time on this.
Eric, Ruth, is the language ok then as it is? Does this close your issue/question Eric?
Thanks
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Loew, Ruth [mailto:rloew@ETS.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:15 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Hansen, Eric
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 - manual communication
Well, you're unlikely to be dealing with people who CAN'T read a written language at all. The issue may be people for whom the written language is less than fully mastered, for which a SL could be helpful. But as you are clearly aware, SLs are hardly universal -- e.g., British and American SL are largely mutually unintelligible, so written English is more of a lingua franca than either SL. But if this is intended as an extra, above & beyond level of accessibility, which not all sites have to meet but which could be implemented where appropriate, then there's nothing wrong with offering translation into a sign language (and calling it a sign language).
Ruth C. Loew
Office of Disability Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:37 PM
To: Loew, Ruth; Hansen, Eric
Cc: GVAN
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 - manual communication
Hi Ruth,
Here is the link to the context.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html
in particular – click on guideline 1.2
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/guidelines.html#media-equiv
Level 3 is for people who want to go above and beyond. The goal is to make thing accessible for people who cannot read the spoken language so there is no need for, nor intent to use, a sign system. The media is already captioned before you get to L3 Only sign languages are intended.
You need to talk to Eric to see what the concern he had was. It was to determine what his concern was that we sent the query to him. (Eric can you tell her what your concern is and what you would like to see changed?)
Thanks
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Discussed in the 22 February 2007 telecon:
Accepted by unanimous consent.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}
DONE change def of sign language interpretation into TWO definitions:
Sign language
- a visual language using combinations of movements of the hands and arms, facial expressions, and body positions to convey meaning
sign language interpretation
- translation of one language, generally a spoken language, into a sign language
Note: Most sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated to the spoken language(s) of the same country or region.
XML source update 02 March 2007
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0054.html
Resolution: Thank you for your new proposed definitions. We have revised the definitions to read:
sign language
a visual language using combinations of movements of the hands and arms, facial expressions, and body positions to convey meaning
sign language interpretation
translation of one language, generally a spoken language, into a sign language
Note: Most sign languages are independent languages that are unrelated to the spoken language(s) of the same country or region. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-814
Commenter: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> on behalf of Deque Systems Inc (archived message ) Context: Document as a whole
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMA]
Discussed in the 13 July 2006 telecon:
Accepted by unanimous consent.
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0058.html
Resolution: Synchronization is not used because it is inherent in the definition of the terms used in the success criteria except for SC 1.2.7. "Captions", "audio description" and "interpretation" all require simultaneity. For SC 1.2.7, the parallel issue is handled by the definition of "full multimedia text alternative including any interaction". (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
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 :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.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: We assume you are inquiring about tables in HTML.
WCAG success criterion 1.3.1 does not require captions or summaries for all tables. The use of captions and summaries are sufficient techniques for marking up tables when they are needed, but not all tables need them.
If a table has text which serves as a caption for the table, it must be marked up appropriately to indicate its relationship to the table, using a technology-specific technique. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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:
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [EDITORZ]
Discussed in the 20 July 2006 telecon:
Resolution: accept LC-879 as proposed
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0007.html
Resolution: Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which multiple evaluators of a task or performance give identical ratings. This is often measured by Cohen's kappa, where 0 indicates agreement due to chance alone and 1 indicating perfect agreement. See http://www.measurementexperts.org/instrument/term_pocket_terms.asp
Test-retest refers to the ability of the same person to come up with the same results each time they rate something.
Inter-rater reliability is a tougher standard than test-retest.
We no longer use this term in WCAG 2.0. Instead, we have revised this section to say "The same results should be obtained with a high level of confidence when people who understand how people with different types of disabilities use the Web test the same content." (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)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Abma, Jake
Abou-Zahra, Shadi
Allan, Jim
Auclair, Christopher
Avila, Jonathan
Babinszki, Tom
Bailey, Bruce
Bernard, Renaldo
Bernier, Alex
Blake, Matthew
Boudreau, Denis
Brewer, Judy
Butler, Shari
Campbell, Alastair
Carlson, Laura
Chakravarthula, Srinivasu
Cirrincione, Pietro
Conway, Vivienne
Cooper, Michael
Crutchfield, Elizabeth
Deltour, Romain
Dick, Wayne
Ding, Chaohai
Dirks, Kim
Dixit, Shwetank
Draffan, E.A.
Duggin, Alistair
Eggert, Eric
Elledge, Michael
Faulkner, Steve
Ferraz, Reinaldo
Fiers, Wilco
Fischer, Detlev
Foliot, John
Garrish, Matt
Garrison, Alistair
Gower, Michael
Guarino Reid, Loretta
Hakkinen, Markku
Haritos-Shea, Katie
Henry, Shawn
Hoffmann, Thomas
Horton, Sarah
Isager, Kasper
Jensen, Tobias Christian
Johansson, Stefan
Johlic, Marc
Johnson, Rick
Jones, Crystal
Joys Andersen, Wilhelm
Kapoor, Shilpi
Keim, Oliver
Kirkpatrick, Andrew
Kirkwood, John
Kiss, Jason
Kraft, Maureen
Ku, JaEun
Kurapati, Sujasree
Lauke, Patrick
Lauriat, Shawn
Lee, Steve
Lemon, Gez
Li, Alex
Li, Kepeng
Li, Liangcheng
Loiselle, Chris
Lowney, Greg
Lui, Edwina
Lund, Adam
Ma, Jia
MacDonald, David
Mace, Amanda
Manser, Erich
Martin, Debra
McCormack, Scott
McMeeking, Chris
McSorley, Jan
Milliken, Neil
Montgomery, Rachael
Mueller, Mary Jo
nicole, windmann
Niemann, Gundula
Nurthen, James
O Connor, Joshue
Oh, Jeong-Hun
Panchang, Sailesh
Pandhi, Charu
Pasi, Aparna
Patch, Kimberly
Philipp, Melanie
Pluke, Mike
Pouncey, Ian
Repsher, Stephen
Rochford, John
Runyan, Marla
Savva, Andreas
Sawczyn, Steve
Schnabel, Stefan
Seeman-Kestenbaum, Lisa
Sims, Glenda
Singh, Avneesh
Skotkjerra, Stein Erik
Sloan, David
Smith, Alan
Smith, Jim
Solomon, Adam
Spellman, Jeanne F
Strobbe, Christophe
Suprock, Greg
Swallow, David
Thompson, Kenneth
Thyme, Anne
Ueki, Makoto
Vaishnav, Jatin
Vanderheiden, Gregg
Venkata, Manoj
Wahlbin, Kathleen
Wang, Can
WANG, WEI
White, Jason
Zelmanowicz, Erica
Zerner, Adam
Zhang, Mengni
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :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
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Proposed Resolution: Thank you for your comment.
Regarding your #1, it may not be technically necessary to clarify the size for large-scale text again as it is defined in the WCAG glossary (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#larger-scaledef). However, your question suggests a need for greater clarity. In response we will modify the first paragraph to read:
This technique relaxes the 4.5:1 contrast ratio requirement for large-scale text (text that is at least 18 point or at least 14 point if bold).
We hope this addresses your concerns. (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)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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!
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMC] []
We do have a problem with the way this SC is worded. It says "If non-text content presents information or responds to user input, text alternatives serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content. If text alternatives cannot serve the same purpose, then text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text content."
In the first sentence we say text alternatives "serve the same purpose" as the non-text content. But then in the second sentence, we say if text alternatives "cannot serve the same purpose". So in a sense, we are defining text alternatives in the first sentence. If they are defined as something that serves the same purpose, then text that cannot serve the same purpose is not, by definition, a "text alternative".
Discussed in the 16 November 2006 telecon:
RESOLUTION: accept LC-1281 as ammended
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/11/16-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}
DONE Reword based on 09 November Resolution, changing "same information" to "equivalent information"
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0047.html
Resolution: Thank you for pointing out this issue with the wording of the first bullet in SC 1.1.1. The intent of the second sentence, as explained in the How to Meet SC 1.1.1 document, is to cover cases such as a test where a particular sense must be used or where content is designed to create a specific sensory experience. We have modified the success criteria to clarify this. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :How should we classify an interactive multimedia game that is continuously drawing to a visual canvas? Is this pre-recorded or live multimedia?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMA]
Discussed in the 13 July 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept proposal for LC-925 amended to include " NOTE: If multimedia is completely computer generated - it is not live and is subject to the requirements for pre-recorded multimedia in WCAG"
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{Question}
DONE add a note to the SC:
NOTE: If multimedia is completely computer generated - it is not live and is subject to the requirements for pre-recorded multimedia in WCAG.
Internal Draft updated 11 August.
BBC: Updated resolution to match 1013.
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0080.html
Resolution: We have added a note to the SC:
Note: If multimedia is completely computer generated, it is not live and is subject to the requirements for pre-recorded multimedia in WCAG 2.0. (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)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
Discussed in the 15 February 2007 telecon:
resolution: no level change on 1.4.1, 1.4.3, and 1.4.4
action: Loretta, Sean, and John to work on 1.4.2 to address the Flash scenario John raised
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html
21-Mar-07: new proposal from John, Sean, Loretta
Discussed in the 12 April 2007 telecon:
Resolution: accept >
Topic: LC-1085 LC-1085, LC-1237, LC-1286: Wording and level of SC 1.4.2, as amended
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{partial accept}
DONE Reword SC 1.4.2 to "If any audio plays automatically for more than 3 seconds, either a mechanism is available to pause or stop the audio, or a mechanism is available to control audio volume which can be set independently of the system volume."
DONE Change SC 1.4.2 to level 1.
DONE Change How To Meet 1.4.2: (now 1.4.1)
DONE Add new sufficient techniques:
- Provide a user interface control to pause or stop multimedia
Internal WD updated 16 April 2007
Resolution: The description of conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to clarify the levels (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ).
Because background audio can interfere with assistive technology, SC 1.4.1 (formerly 1.4.2) has been moved to level A.
Because level A attempts to put the fewest possible limitations on presentation, and because assistive technology will be able to present the text or text equivalents of this content to the user, the working group felt that SC 1.4.2 (formerly 1.4.1) was most appropriate at level AA.
Because of the additional limitations they put on presentation, the working group felt that SC 1.4.4 (formerly 1.4.3) and SC 1.4.5 (formerly 1.4.4) are most appropriate at level AAA. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [EDITORZ]
BBC: Late Comment, Gregg's response is below and issue is closed.
Resolution: The Hex already is RGB.
So this formula works great for what you want to do.
Just take the HEX number and break it into three pieces and use the three
pieces directly (they are R, G and B)
Or you can use one of the tools that do this automatically for you using the
formula.
Here is one tool. They have an updated one with the latest equations and it should appear at this address soon.
http://www.wat-c.org/tools/CCA/LCRA/index.html (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)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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>
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMA]
@@add advisory technique
""provide volume adjustment capabilities to audio that plays in a custom application that is part of the content."
There are several distinctive issues abut this. I think the comment is asking for the user to be able to adjust overall volume. The SC is about audio contrast (forground vs background). So if we did add a SC for volume it would not be here. If we want to to require a separate volume for foreground it is would be almost impossible to meet.
1) Overall Audio Volume gain.
Audio volume is generally a User Agent issue. In the case of an embedded web application it could be included.
Generally the volume is controlled by an amplifier that the user has at their end. If they are hard of hearing they would presumably have an amplifier that would give them sufficient volume gain.
Almost all sound content uses commercial players, which have volume controls. The only case I can think of where this is an issue might be a custom application. In 10 years on the web I've never seen a custom audio application for the web.
However, I see no major problem with adding an advisory technique that says: "provide volume adjustment capabilities to audio that plays in a custom application that is part of the content."
Discussed in the 20 July 2006 telecon:
Resolution: accept LC-1322 as proposed
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/20-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Resolution: Control of volume is a user agent issue. Most players already have volume controls on them. Content, due to security issues, usually cannot directly access the hardware volume control and thus can only turn volume down not up. We therefore do not include a recommendation for content to also include a volume control, though user agents should. This belongs to the domain of User Agents and is covered in the User Agent guidelines (UAAG 1.0) which reads as follows:
"Guideline 4. Ensure user control of rendering...User agents rendering audio have to allow the user to control the audio volume globally and to allow the user to control distinguishable audio tracks."
(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)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMC][TEAMB] (applies to 2.2 and 3.1)
Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: accept 1325 as ammeded (by Christophe in the survey)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Resolution: Text that is being scrolled automatically would be covered by SC 2.2.3 and F16:
2.2.3 Content can be paused by the user unless the timing or movement is part of an activity where timing or movement is essential.
F16: Failure of SC 2.2.3 due to including scrolling content where there is not a mechanism to pause and restart the content
If an author uses scrolling text, there must be a way to pause the text to give the person time to read and understand it. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :Comment: What is the difference between 2.4.4 & 2.4.8? They seem very similar.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
Discussed in the 31 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: sent back to Team B to consider survey comments.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 07 September 2006 telecon:
sent back to Team to consider comments
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: refer link text issues back to team B with the understanding that Ben's format will be used for the definition and the 2.4.8 supplemental language gets worked out and Loretta and David work out the link focus issue for 2.4.4. Accept the rest of the resolution as proposed pending resolution of the previously stated items.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 28 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution:Send "SC 2.4.4 and How to Meet Success Criterion 2.4.4" back to Team B for further work. Action item taken by David to clean up failures and add more examples. Action item by Team B: take survey comments and update Wiki pages to update survey comments, take sufficient techniques and make them general as opposed to specific HTML techniques.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}
SEE ACTIONS IN LC-497
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0047.html
Resolution: We have reworded SC 2.4.4 to clarify its intent and to remove the term "programmatically associated". It now reads:
2.4.4 The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text and its programmatically determined link context.
where "Programmatically determined link context" is defined at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#pdlinkcontextdef as:
programmatically determined link context
1. Additional information that can be programmatically determined from relationships with a link; and
2. can be extracted, combined with the link text, and presented to users in different modalities.
Example 1: Screen readers provide commands to read the current sentence when focus is on a link.
Example 2: Examples of information that can be extracted, combined with link text, and presented to users in different modalities include text that is in the same sentence, paragraph, list, or table cell as the link or in a table header cell that is associated with the table cell that contains the link. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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:
Related issues: LC-625
(space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
ive in their own right, such as "report.html" or "spk12.html""
The "Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.3" references other web units such as audio, video, images.
So the SC does not focus solely on web pages - not accept comment?
Issue discussed on 27 June 2006 Team B meeting and it was decided to assign this comment to the web_unit group of comments and to put this issue on hold.
The How To Meet material references a "An interactive movie-like shopping environment where the user navigates about and activates products to have them demonstrated, and moves them to a cart to buy them"
Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
resolution: accept Issue LC-746, Issue LC-1106 and Issue LC-1107 as modified to add "web unit" at the end.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Partial Accept
SEE ACTIONS FOR LC-625
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0054.html
Resolution: Thank you for catching this. We have removed the examples that are not Web pages and added an example of a Web application. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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.
Related issues: 510
573
1110
1142
1290
(space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
Discuss state of user agents (poor support for this kind of functionality in general) and expectation that user agent will provide support that doesn't cause focus to move from the link. User may need to try a variety of contexts.
Discussed in the 31 August 2006 telecon:
resolution: sent back to Team B to consider survey comments.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 07 September 2006 telecon:
sent back to Team to consider comments
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 14 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution: refer link text issues back to team B with the understanding that Ben's format will be used for the definition and the 2.4.8 supplemental language gets worked out and Loretta and David work out the link focus issue for 2.4.4. Accept the rest of the resolution as proposed pending resolution of the previously stated items.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/14-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 28 September 2006 telecon:
Resolution:Send "SC 2.4.4 and How to Meet Success Criterion 2.4.4" back to Team B for further work. Action item taken by David to clean up failures and add more examples. Action item by Team B: take survey comments and update Wiki pages to update survey comments, take sufficient techniques and make them general as opposed to specific HTML techniques.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Discussed in the 05 October 2006 telecon:
Resolution: accept proposal as amended
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/10/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept}
DONE Change SC 2.4.4 to:
The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text and its programmatically determined link context.
DONE Add Glossary Definition:
Programmatically determined link context
1.) Additional information that can be [programmatically determined] from [relationships] with a link; and
2.) can be extracted, combined with the link text, and presented to users in different modalities.
Example 1: Screen readers provide commands to read the current sentence when focus is on a link.
Example 2: Examples of information that can be extracted, combined with link text, and presented to users in different modalities include
text that is in the same sentence, paragraph, list, or table cell as the link or in a table header cell that is associated with the table cell that contains the link.
DONE Change SC 2.4.8 to:
The purpose of each link can be identified from the link text.
DONE move title attribute technique in 2.4.8 to advisory
DONE In HTM 2.4.8, change "Supplementing link text with hidden text" to "Using CSS to hide a portion of the link text "
DONE Replace intent section of 2.4.8 with:
The intent of this success criterion is to help users understand the purpose of each link in the content, so they can decide whether they want to follow it. Links with the same destination should have the same descriptions (per Success Criterion 3.2.4), but links with different purposes and destinations should have different descriptions. Because the purpose of a link can be identified from its link text, links can be understood when they are out of context, such as when the user agent provides a list of all the links on a page.
DONE Add Common Failure for SC 2.4.4
Providing link context only in content that is not related to the link.
DONE Change third bullet item of Benefits of SC 2.4.4 to:
People with visual disabilities will be able to determine the purpose of a link by exploring the link's context.
DONE Change title of G53:
Identifying the purpose of a link using link text combined with the text of the enclosing sentence
DONE Change G53 as described at:
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Identifying_the_purpose_of_a_link_using_link_text_and_the_sentence_that_contains_the_link
DONE include the revisions to HTM 2.4.4, new common failure and related techniques from the wiki
BBC: Note that H20 was deleted here as a result of the creation of H77, H78 and H79.
Internal WD updated 23 October 2006
Resolution: We have changed SC 2.4.4 to make it clearer that it may be necessary for the user to request context information to understand the purpose of the link at level A. At level AAA, the purpose of the link can be understood from the link independent of its context. We have also changed the language to clarify that the text describing the purpose, and not the purpose itself, is what can be programmatically determined
(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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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:
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMC]
Discussed at Team C call 30 May 2006 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/05/30-wcag-teamc-minutes#item01
Team C likes the current wording of the definition of "context-sensitive help" because it neither requires nor prohibits what Jason is suggesting.
Team C suggests that the editors consider changing "function" to "functionality" in the definition of "context-sensitive help" to avoid any confusion with the programmer's definition of "function".
<proposal>
{not-accept}
The current wording of the definition of "context-sensitive help" neither requires nor prohibits the suggestion here. We think it is better for designers to have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate context-sensitive help for their application.
</proposal>
resolution: accept proposed resolutions for 498, 499, 559, 560
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/06/01-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Resolution: The current wording of the definition of "context-sensitive help" neither requires nor prohibits the suggestion here. We think it is better for designers to have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate context-sensitive help for their application.
(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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :with “identifying� do you mean “a mechanism is available to the user for identifying...�?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
Issue: when do we mean available to the user and when do we mean programmatically determined?
Discussed in the 03 August 2006 telecon:
Resolution: LC-915 send back to team b to work with Becky to add examples and to also add “available to the user� to 3.1.4 and 3.1.6 as well.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html
LGR, 07 Aug: Updated resolution, emailed Becky to see if this is sufficient.
Discussed in the 10 August 2006 telecon:
Resolution: send 915 back to Loretta, explain to the commenter the role user agent in these issues.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/10-wai-wcag-minutes.htm
Sent to survey 17 Aug 2006; revised to address comments.
Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon:
Unanimous Consent:
Editors: LC-815, LC-894&LC-1000, LC-973, LC-1060
Team B: LC-609, LC-777, LC-778, LC-915, LC-984, LC-1012, LC-1127, LC-1131
Team C: LC-787
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{accept?}
DONE Add the following example to How To Meet 3.1.4:
Example: Expanded forms of Abbreviations.
The expanded form of each abbreviation is available in a programmatically determinable manner. User agents that speak the text can use the expanded form to announce the abbreviation. Other user agents might make the expanded form available as a tooltip or as contextual help for the abbreviation.
Internal WD updated 25 August.
Resolution: The success criteria allows for direct or user-agent provided mechanisms: the mechanism can either make the information available to the user or programmatically available to user agents which can then make it available to the user. We have added an example to Success Criterion 3.1.4 to demonstrate mechanisms provided to the user by the user agent. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
LGR: do we expect authors to assume that the education system(s) for the languages(s) used are the only ones applicable?
Discussed in the 07 September 2006 telecon:
resolution: unanimous acceptance of Team b and team c items that everyone agreed with
Team B: LC-540, LC-759, LC-932, LC-1298, LC-1381
Team C: LC-673, LC-1407, LC-1166
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/09/07-wai-wcag-minutes.html
{not-accept}
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0047.html
Resolution: The success criterion relies on the UN definition because it takes into account cultural differences in education systems. The Working Group did not want to base the success criterion on a particular country's educational system. The UN definition provides a framework for translating the purpose of the success criterion into the specifics for different countries. (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
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :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:
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMB]
The language elements that this SC deals with include "Heteronym" and "Capitonyms" (a simple explanation of these can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone). The following are borrowed from this Wikipedia explanation; Heteronyms (also sometimes called heterophones) are words that are spelled the same but have different pronunciations and meanings. An example of Heteronym is "desert (abandon) and desert (arid region) are heteronyms (pronounced differently).
Capitonyms are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings when capitalised (and may or may not have different pronunciations) – for example, polish (to make shiny) and Polish (from Poland).
Discussed 29 June 2006
resolution: accept 543 as currently written
http://www.w3.org/2006/06/29-wai-wcag-minutes.html
OUTCOME from July 29 Full WCAG Discussion: Accept, but, Make sure that the response includes the content of the action item that will be done.
DONE Add the examples to the "Intent of this success criterion" section of "How to Meet 3.1.6". As follows:
"For example, in the English language heteronyms are words that are spelled the same but have different pronunciations and meanings, such as the words desert (abandon) and desert (arid region). Additionally, in some languages certain characters can be pronounced in different ways. In Japanese, for example, there are characters like Han characters(Kanji) which have multiple pronunciations. Screen readers may speak the characters incorrectly without the information on pronunciation. When read incorrectly, the content will not make sense to users."
XML updated 04 August.
Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0068.html
Resolution: Guideline 3.1.6 is indeed relevant to alphabetic languagues. Examples have been added to the "Intent of this success criterion" section of "How to Meet 3.1.6" to illustrate this. The revised section reads as follows:
"For example, in the English language heteronyms are words that are spelled the same but have different pronunciations and meanings, such as the words desert (abandon) and desert (arid region). Additionally, in some languages certain characters can be pronounced in different ways. In Japanese, for example, there are characters like Han characters(Kanji) which have multiple pronunciations. Screen readers may speak the characters incorrectly without the information on pronunciation. When read incorrectly, the content will not make sense to users." (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-512
Commenter: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> (archived message ) Context: Success Criterion 4.1.1
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
Not assigned
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 :Part of Item:
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
To what extent is this implicit in the definition of "programmatically determined" and all of the criteria requiring that aspects of the content must be able to be "programmatically determined"?
Does programmatic determination impose a stronger requirement than sc 4.1.1 in so far as it demands the use of representations supported by user agents? It is unclear how one could satisfy 1.3 if the user agents can't unambiguously parse the content in the first place.
Proposed Change:
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: [TEAMA]
Discussed in the 16 May 2006 Team A call, proposal sent to list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006AprJun/0190.html
Resolution adopted by working group on 18 May 2006 Teleconference: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/05/18-wai-wcag-minutes.html
(accept)
Resolution: There is often overlap but not necessarily always overlap. For example, two browsers might parse a document differently using repair techniques. A particular item might be programmatically determinable but be located in two different places on the page in the two renderings. It doesn’t affect the meaning, but the inability to parse the markup can break AT where it doesn’t break other browsers.
(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 .