There are 28 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
1-20
21-28
general comment comments
substantive comments
Comment LC-2351
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.7.2 See comment on A.1.2.1 regarding requiring conformance claims
(item a). Item b may not be possible if the author has not met the
requirements of WCAG (included text alternatives, provided structural
markup, etc.) Is item c referring to UAAG version 2.0? If ATAG 2.0 is
on track to finish first, it may be problematic to reference a standard that is not yet complete and I don't think we want to be referencing UAAG 1.0 which may be outdated.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2332
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.1.2 Drawing Keyboard Access
*Note 2:* This success criterion should not be interpreted as
discouraging mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard
operation.
It seems like this note applies to all of A.3.1 Keyboard, not just drawing.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: JR: Agreed. But things get repetitive...so what if we moved it up into a
section under Rationale for the whole Guideline called "Remember:" or
something similar:
"Remember: This guideline and its success criteria should not be
interpreted as discouraging mouse input or other input methods in
addition to keyboard operation."
PLUS we could convert the "See Also" sections that appear elsewhere into
"Remember".
AND maybe we could bring the reminders about manual checking and repair
up to that level too since it is so important that readers notice those.
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2333
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: in
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 :A.3.1.3 Avoiding Content Keyboard Traps
The word "Avoiding" is problematic. Some people think it means "don’t
do," and others think it means "try not to do." This was a frequent
source of confusion in WCAG 1.0, and WCAG 2.0 avoids (sorry, couldn't
resist) the word. Instead use "No Content Keyboard Traps" or "Prevent
Content Keyboard Traps".
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: JR: I suggest: "No Keyboard Traps" - this is in synch. with the current
draft of UAAG 2.0.
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2009/ED-UAAG20-20091105/#principle-operable)
Resolution: Accepted. Changed to "No keyboard traps" (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2334
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.1.5 Keyboard Shortcuts
To what? Key functionality? Every possible function? How many are
enough? This needs more detail to be testable.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: JR: UAAG 2.0 uses this wording:
4.1.8 Important Command Functions: Important command functions (e.g.
related to navigation, display, content, information management, etc.)
are available using a single or sequence of keystrokes or key
combinations. (Level AA)
JR: Plus they have this requirement which is quite useful:
4.1.12 Present Direct Commands in User Interface: The user has the
option to have any direct commands (e.g. keyboard shortcuts) in the user
agent user interface be presented with their associated user interface
controls (e.g. "Ctrl+S" displayed on the "Save" menu item and toolbar
button). (Level AA)
SN: We don't want to get too perscriptive by saying how many shortcuts there should be.
Work up some justification text that will go into the Intent section.
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2356 : B.1.2.2 needs example
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :B.1.2.2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information
An example would be nice here. (e.g. saving a structured graphic to a raster image format)
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2357 : B.2.1.1 and B.2.1.2 are too similar
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :B.2.1
Why is there a line between B.2.1.1 and B.2.1.2 when both are A?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2338 : Define an accessibility standard
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :Guideline A.1.2 This is a general comment about the non web accessibility compliance points: There are no restrictions on what an
accessibility standard is. It is user defined now. Consequently, the
evaluator could define their own compliance claims.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2339 : Remove requirement for conformance claim
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.1.2.1 In WCAG, it is not a requirement to make a conformance claim.
This provision seems to require that authoring tools make a claim.
Suggest removing "and cite in the conformance claim)" and adding an
additional sentence: "If an ATAG 2.0 conformance claim is made, the
claim should cite the accessibility standards and/or platform
conventions that were followed.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2340
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.2.1.1 Recognized Alternative Content:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.2.1.1 Define "accessible" as used in the context of this provision.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2342 : text view and embedded objects
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum):
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.2.2.2 If you are accessing text, you need access to the caret
position, and the selected text. Does use of a text view preclude
embedded objects? If not then they need to be accessible as well.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2335
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: Guideline A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance keyboard access to authoring features. [Implementing A.3.1] (A.3.1)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.1.6 Drawing Keyboard Access (Enhanced)
Should the AAA one require direct access, rather than also allowing
indirect access by editing properties? I agree this makes sense for A
and AA, but should it go all the way for AAA?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: JR: Agreed and perhaps both. I think property pages might be more usable
for some users with disabilities (e.g., people using screen readers),
whereas more direct manipulation would probably be more usable by others
because the user only needs to focus on one place on the screen.
Resolution: We will rephrase the AAA to require both direct access and indirect access, since one or the other will be more advantagous to certain groups.
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2343 : repeated SC provision
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.1.1 Keyboard (Minimum):
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.1.1 The provision is repeated. Why is this provision needed? It is
already required by provision A.1.1.1.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2336
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.2.1 Data Saved:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.2.1 Data Saved
Note: For web-based authoring tools, this applies to any web content
that has already been submitted to the server by the user agent.
I wonder if it would make sense to have a AAA SC that provides for
automatically submitting content in such a system?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: JR: I'm ok with a Data Saved (Extended) Level AAA.
JS: I like it, it rounds out the existing offering.
SN: I don't want to oppose it.
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2344 : ATAG exceeds WCAG requirements
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.2.3 Moving Targets:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.2.3 This provision is an example of a WCAG requirement that is made for stringent in ATAG. There's no issue with doing that when there is a good reason which in this case, I think there is. But the problem is that the authoring tool developer may have already implemented one of the other strategies that are allowed by WCAG. Somewhere ATAG should call out where there are provisions that override WCAG provisions. Maybe in A.1.1.1?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2345 : WCAG exceeds ATAG
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.2.3 Moving Targets:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.2.3 This checkpoint only says to stop. Per WCAG 2 you want to be
able to Pause and Hide content.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2347 : Navigate by Relationship
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.4.2 Navigate By Element Type:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.4.2 There should be a navigate by relationships: labels, controls,
describedby, etc. should those features be supported.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2346 : include ARIA roles
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.4.2 Navigate By Element Type:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.4.2 This should include role types such as ARIA roles.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2337
Commenter: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.5.1 Text Search:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Jan Richards
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 :A.3.5.1 Text Search: The author(s) can perform text searches of web
content in which all of the following are true: (Level AA)
(a) Search All Editable: The search can be within any information that
is text and that the authoring tool can modify (e.g., text content, text
alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and
attributes, etc.); and
Does "The search can be" mean "The search MUST be" or "The search MAY be"?
Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of
a search then the authoring tool may switch to a different editing view
to display the results (e.g., to a source content editing view to
display search results within markup tags).
I would hope that the authoring tool won't do this automatically, as
that could be quite unexpected and jarring. Perhaps this should say
that the authoring tool could provide a mechanism for the author to switch?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: Change to:
Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable.
Change the note to say:
insert "then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view..."
AND to add example of a switch mechanism such as listing the editing view that will open in the search results list (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2350 : include auditory settings
Commenter: Sueann Nichols <ssnichol@us.ibm.com> (archived message ) Context: A.3.6.1 Save Settings:
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :A.3.6.1 and A.3.6.2 What about auditory settings? Most authoring tools
don't have them but if they do, shouldn't the preference setting be
saved?
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
1-20
21-28
Add a comment .