Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


UAAG review December 2013

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page


This file is protected (locked for editing) to provide a stable reference.
(EOWG: This is an archive of previous comments. Put new comments in the UAAG review page.)



This file is protected (locked for editing) to provide a stable reference.
(EOWG: This is an archive of previous comments. Put new comments in the UAAG review page.)


Drafts:

Previous comments: UAAG review June 2013

Note: These comments are from individuals and have not been reviewed by all EOWG participants.

UAAG

Overall

  • Congrats on getting to this stage with the technical material! It would be good to re-look at the abstract and intro now. A few rough notes are below, although I haven't pointed out all areas that I think need work. {Shawn}

Abstract

  • I think the abstract needs editing to be clearer, more direct, and simpler.{Shawn}
  • Current text: "The "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (UAAG 2.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)."
    Suggested edit: "UAAG is introduced in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview."
    (This comment was made July 2010 and September 2013.){Shawn}
  • Last sentence of second paragraph is not clear. I don't really understand what it is for.
    "Technologies not addressed directly by UAAG 2.0 (e.g. assistive technologies for braille rendering) will be essential to ensuring Web access for some users with disabilities.
    {Sylvie, 13 December 2013}

Status of this Document

  • Location: Under "May be Superseded", first paragraph, third sentence, (two instances).
    Current wording: "W3C" acronym expansion "the World Wide Web Consortium", which results in the phrases "A list of current the World Wide Web Consortium publications" and "report can be found in the the World Wide Web Consortium technical reports".
    Suggested revision: Either remove "the" from the acronym expansion, leaving just "World Wide Web Consortium", or remove the acronym expansion completely.
    Rationale: First option is more accurate, second option because the acronym "W3C" is more recognizable than its expansion (and faster to hear).
    Note: There are other instances in the document ... a code search for 'title="the World ..."' should find them all. {Bim}
    • Agree {Sharron 11 December}

Overview

  • Location: 3rd sentence
    Current wording: ...have control over their environment for accessing the web.
    Suggested revision: ...have equal control over the environment they use to access the web.
    Rationale: No one has full "control over their environment," but all should have the same degree of control {Sharron, 11 December}
  • Location: Next to last sentence
    Current wording: Although author preferences are important, UAAG 2.0 includes requirements to override certain author preferences when the user would not otherwise be able to access that content.
    Suggested revision: Omit
    Rationale: Seems like a non sequitur. Don't understand why that aspect of UAAG is particularly called out, seems a distraction. {Sharron, 11 December}
  • Needs editing. For example "Improving accessibility means considering a wide range of disabilities." needs to be stronger.
    These include visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, language, learning, neurological disabilities, and disabilities related to aging." — consider using updated WAI wording: including auditory, cognitive, neurological, physical, speech, and visual disabilities.
    "The UAWG expects that software that satisfies the requirements of UAAG 2.0 will be more flexible, manageable, extensible, and beneficial for a broad range of users." -- Why is this in the normative guidelines?{shawn}

UAAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

  • "Each success criterion is assigned a level. The levels are designed to meet the needs of different groups and different situations: A (low, or basic, conformance), AA (recommended conformance), and AAA (highest conformance).' uses different terminology than the Levels sections, which say: "A (basic), AA (recommended), and AAA (advanced)" {shawn}
  • In the paragraph explaining the principles, what about adding a link to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. It would allow the reader to go to WCAG if they want to look at WCAG's principles.
    Related text:
    Principles 1, 2, and 3 are parallel to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.
    {Sylvie, 13 December}

Levels of Conformance

  • This section jumps around. The heading is "Levels of Conformance" but only the first section is about conformance. See levels comments on Implementing below. Maybe this section should stay "Levels of Conformance" and contain only the following. {Shawn}

User agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 at one of three conformance levels: A (basic), AA (recommended), and AAA (advanced). The three levels of UAAG 2.0 conformance are based on the corresponding level designations (A, AA, or AAA) of the individual success criteria (i.e., specific requirements). The user agent can conform to a level by meeting the success criteria of that level and the levels below it.

  • Level A conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A success criteria.
  • Level AA conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A and AA success criteria.
  • Level AAA conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A, AA, and AAA success criteria.

For details about what each level represents, how the levels were determined, and how user agent developers and managers can use the levels for prioritizing accessibility improvements and designing user interfaces, see <Level A, A, AAA in Implementing UAAG>.

UAAG 2.0 Guidelines

  • Location: 1st and only sentence sentence
    Current wording: The guidelines, success criteria, their notes, and the conformance applicability notes are normative. Guideline summaries are informative.
    Question: is there a reason why "normative" is not linked to a definition and "informative" is? Or is it an oversight? {Sharron, 11 December}
  • Location: UAAG 2.0 Conformance Applicability Notes, item 3
    Current wording: RFC 2119 language not used
    Comment: Suggest a link from "RFC 2119" to a glossary item
    {Howard, 12 December}
  • Location: Summary item 1.1.4
    Current wording: It's recommended that the user can configure the caption text and that text or sign language alternative cannot obscure the video or the controls (1.1.4).
    Comment: I'm not sure if this means caption text should not be configurable to obscure the video or controls.
    Suggested wording: It's recommended that the user can configure the caption text but that text or sign language alternative cannot be configured to obscure the video or the controls (1.1.4). {Howard, 12 December}
    • I don't like "but" in that sentence. I started to suggest a different edit, but then when I went and looked at the SC and the summary, they seem to be out of synch, so I added the comment below rather than working on a sentence that will likely change anyway.{Shawn}
  • Location: Guideline 1.1 Summary
    Comment: The summary does not match the success criteria.
    {Shawn}

Implementing UAAG

Overall (Implementing)

  • The document is called "Implementing UAAG" however it seems to provide very little specific guidance on actually implementing UAAG technically. Instead it provides information on how people with disabilities use the requirements of UAAG. Thus the title seems very misleading -- that the doc will provide something that it does not. It seems it would be better titled "Understanding UAAG". {Shawn}
  • comment {name}

Levels of Conformance (Implementing)

  • Current wording: "Levels of Conformance" (heading)
    Suggested revision: "Levels A, AA, AAA"
    Rationale: This section is broader than conformance -- it's about the level of each SC, how they were determined, what they mean, and how UA developers can use them. {Shawn}
  • I think it's good that you moved most of the levels info to Implementing. I suggest the following restructuring of the section for flow and to focus on what most readers will be interested in -- that is, what the levels mean (not how you determined them) and how they can be used. (Follow up to sept 2013 comment.) {Shawn}

User agents can conform to UAAG 2.0 at one of three conformance levels: A (basic), AA (recommended), and AAA (advanced). The three levels of UAAG 2.0 conformance are based on the corresponding level designations (A, AA, or AAA) of the individual success criteria (i.e., specific requirements). The user agent can conform to a level by meeting the success criteria of that level and the levels below it.

  • Level A conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A success criteria.
  • Level AA conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A and AA success criteria.
  • Level AAA conformance: The user agent complies with all applicable level A, AA, and AAA success criteria.

The level designations of the individual success criteria balance the needs of people with disabilities with user agent implementation difficulty. (Specific factors that were considered in determining the level of each success criterion include: severity of impact to users; inconvenience to other users, including users with other disabilities; current implementations; difficulty of implementation; and size of scope.[@@ "size of scope" needs to be explained.]) Generally:

  • Level A success criteria address aspects of user agents that:
    • can block some people with disabilities from getting information or accomplishing a task, and/or
    • are relatively easy for developers to implement or are common in the existing user agents.
  • Level AA success criteria address aspects of user agents that:
    • can cause difficulty for some people with disabilities in getting information or accomplishing a task (including tasks causing excessive fatigue), and/or
    • may be more difficult for developers to implement.
  • Level AAA success criteria address aspects of user agents that:
    • improve accessibility or reduces fatigue for some people with disabilities, and/or,
    • may be very difficult for developers to implement.

The level designation of individual success criteria is based on the the overall situation considering all disabilities and all user agents. Because of the wide variety of disabilities and user agents, the level designations might not match specific circumstances. Even user agents that conform at the highest level (AAA) may not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability.

Using Levels

Developers of user agents may want to use the levels to:

  • Help prioritize accessibility improvements to their projects, giving more weight to the level A and AA success criteria.
  • Help decide how to provide accessibility functionality in the user interface, for example, putting Level A functionality in a toolbar, Level AA in the main preference area, and Level AAA in an "Advanced settings" dialog box.