Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240 241-260 261-280 281-300 301-320 321-340 341-360 361-380 381-400 401-420 421-440 441-460 461-480 481-500 501-520 521-540 541-560 561-580 581-600 601-620 621-640 641-660 661-680 681-687
Not all comments have been marked as replied to. The disposition of comments is not complete.
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-963
Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> (archived comment) |
|
Determining equivalent facilitation at this granularity so that it is testable is beyond the scope of WCAG 2. User agents and assistive technology may present alternative renderings of the content tailored for the user, but the author should present a base set of behaviors in which changes of context are initiated only by user request. | no |
LC-1049
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
Because of the limitations that SC 3.2.3 places on presentation, the working group feels that level AAA is appropriate. Not all Guidelines have success criteria at every level. | no |
LC-1066
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself and will now be included in the WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 transition materials. This will make it easier to update the mapping as new techniques are developed. The working group will work in coordination with the EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping is updated. To answer your question, WCAG 2.0 does not prohibit the use of images of text provided that they have text alternatives. There is, however, an advisory technique that advises against the use of images of text in order to acheive a desired visual effect. Success criterion 1.3.1 lists the use of <ol>, <ul> and <dl> for lists as a sufficient technique. Other techniques could be used, but text alternatives would have to make the information and relationships conveyed through this use of images clear. |
no |
LC-1071
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
Assistive technology has advanced since the WCAG 1.0 guidelines were released. As long as the label is explicitly associated with a field, assistive technologies can present the information to the user in an understandable manner. However, since visual positioning can be important, especially for pages translated into other languages, we have added an advisory technique to Success Criterion 1.3.1 and Guideline 3.2 titled "Positioning labels to maximize predictability of relationships." Note: The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself. The working group will work in coordination with the EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force in the creation of transition materials and will consider these comments when the mapping is updated. |
no |
LC-1191
Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> on behalf of Lowney Access Research, LLC (archived comment) |
|
The current wording is taken from UAAG and the proposed wording is not sufficiently different to warrant changing the UAAG definition. Most of what was added could be interpreted as part of rendering the content. | no |
LC-1062
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The terms "name" "role" and "programmatically set" are each defined in the glossary. How to Meet SC 4.1.2 describes the intent of this success criterion and provides techniques about how to meet it. With regard to your suggestion to rewrite 4.1.2, without more information about the problems you see with this provision or specific suggestions for how to rewrite this criterion, we are unsure how to address your comment. | no |
LC-1027
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The statements you refer to are meant to reflect the reality that not all Web content can be made accessible to all people. One of the lessons learned with WCAG 1.0 was that, for some individuals, even content that meets WCAG 1.0 AAA did not overcome the accessibility barriers faced by those with certain combinations of disabilities or with certain types of severe disabilities. Regarding the proposal to combine levels A and AA as mandatory and rename level AAA to advisory or optional, the working group has received a great deal of feedback on both sides of this issue. We have chosen three levels because we feel it provides the best options for the different users of the guidelines. |
no |
LC-1054
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
This success criterion is at level AAA because not all web pages are part of a set of web pages to which this success criterion can be applied. The working group agrees that when it does apply, it is very important for people with these disabilities. | no |
LC-1058
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
While context sensitive help is useful and sometimes necessary for people with disabilities, the type and level of detail for context sensitive help varies greatly depending upon the type and functions of the site. Requirements must be applicable to all Web sites in order to qualify as Level A or Level AA in WCAG 2.0. | no |
LC-1059
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
As outlined by the different situations in SC 3.1.4, providing the expansion for the first use of an abbreviation is only a sufficient technique when the abbreviation only has one expansion on that web page, e.g., Dr. is only used as an abbreviation for doctor or for drive, but not for both. Otherwise, providing the expansion on the first use will be more confusing for users with cognitive disabilities. | no |
LC-1060
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
While it is possible that the result of a time limit expiration may be a change in context or content, success criterion 2.2.1 and 3.2.1 (both at level A) work together to ensure that both unexpected changes in context as the result of a component receving focus (3.2.1) and changes in content resulting from a time-out (2.2.1) will not occur unexpectedly. While exceptions to success criterion 2.2.1 for real-time events and activities where timing is essential exist, guideline 2.2 does not allow changes in content for no reason. | no |
LC-1064
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The working group looked at this topic carefully over an extended period of time and concluded that requiring strict adherence to all aspects of specifications does not necessarily result in an increase in accessibility. For example, it is possible to create invalid pages that present no accessibility barriers. It is also possible in certain situations to enhance accessibility through the use of markup that is not part of the specification. The working group must work within its charter and only include things that directly affected accessibility. Some aspects of "use technologies according to specification" and validity do relate to accessibility. However, others do not. So requiring validity would take us beyond our charter. We do recommend it though and it is our number one technique listed for conforming to SC 4.1.1. |
no |
LC-1096
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The working group has discussed this issue. The criteria for having something at Level AA is that it must be something that can reasonably be applied to all Web content. But there are valid reasons, such as financial security or personal information where this cannot be done because it is against regulations to preserve any of this information once a session expires or is terminated. The working group therefore decided to put this requirement at Level AAA. | no |
LC-974
Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> (archived comment) |
|
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have added the following definition for the term "sequentially navigated": navigated sequentially navigated in the order defined for advancing focus from one element to the next with the keyboard. We have also added the following explanation to the Intent Section of SC 2.4.6: The way that sequential navigation order is determined in Web content is defined by the technology of the content. For example, simple HTML defines sequential navigation via the notion of tabbing order. Dynamic HTML may modify the navigation sequence using scripting along with the addition of a tabindex attribute to allow focus to additional elements. In this case, the navigation should follow relationships and sequences in the content. If no scripting or tabindex attributes are used, the navigation order is the order that components appear in the content stream. (See HTML 4.01 Specification, section 17.11, "Giving focus to an element"). |
no |
LC-1045
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
The notion of "programmatically determined" is basic to the success criteria that use it; we don't see a way of redefining those success criteria not to use the concept. The first issue in "programmatically determined" is making sure that the information is represented in the technology in a way that is clear and unambiguous within the capabilities of that technology. Many of the most serious issues addressed by requiring that information be programmatically determined have to do with authors implying information via visual presentation, rather than encoding it explicitly in the technology. We put extensive work into the difficult issue that you identify, of "which assistive technology"? The basic answer is that it is the assistive technology available to the audience. Individual techniques identify issues with specific versions of user agents and assistive technology, so that authors can make informed decisions about whether the techniques are acceptable for their audience. |
no |
LC-1069
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
Please note that the the definition of programmatically determined specifically covers support by assistive technologies: "determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities". CSS can be used to position items visually on a page. While the position is of course programatically determined, the reading order on the basis of CSS positioning is not, because CSS lacks layout concepts such as "previous" or "next" that would define, unambiguously, the proper reading order of a graphical layout. In theory, advanced heuristics might be able to extrapolate this information, but such approaches are not supported by current tools so this is not a sufficient technique at this time. Therefore, this success criterion does have relevance and it is recommended to follow the sufficient techniques provided. |
no |
LC-1070
Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> (archived comment) |
|
If CSS is an accessibility-supported Web technology, then the author can rely on it to satisfy success criterion. However, the success criterion must still be satisfied. So, for instance, if non-text content that conveys information is included via CSS, SC 1.1.1 requires that a text alternative also present equivalent information. This information must be programmatically determined, that is, exposed to assistive technologies. So even if most of the features or functionality of a Web technology are accessibility supported, it may not be possible to use certain functionality in the technology and still conform to WCAG. We have completely rewritten the Conformance section, and this should now be clearer. |
no |
LC-1162
Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> on behalf of Lowney Access Research, LLC (archived comment) |
|
Good point. We have revised the success criterion 1.4.2 to read, "1.4.2 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." | no |
LC-1169
Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> on behalf of Lowney Access Research, LLC (archived comment) |
|
The success criterion has been modified as you suggest to allow moving content that is pure decoration to simply be stopped without requiring a means to restart it. | no |
LC-1172
Greg Lowney <gcl-0039@access-research.org> on behalf of Lowney Access Research, LLC (archived comment) |
|
To make this requirement easier to understand, we have reworded SC 4.1.1 to clarify that it must be possible to parse content without the need for user agent repair. The revised SC reads as follows: 4.1.1 Content implemented using markup languages has elements with complete start and end tags, except as allowed by their specifications, and are nested according to their specifications. (Level A) Note: Start and end tags that are missing a critical character in their formation, such as a closing angle bracket or a mismatched attribute value quote are not complete. |
no |
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-180 181-200 201-220 221-240 241-260 261-280 281-300 301-320 321-340 341-360 361-380 381-400 401-420 421-440 441-460 461-480 481-500 501-520 521-540 541-560 561-580 581-600 601-620 621-640 641-660 661-680 681-687