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 June 2013

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page, current 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.)

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.)




  • Not sure where to add this comment that applies to UAAG and Implmenting: I find the summaries of each guideline really useful. {Sylvie, 14 June}
  • Carefully consider what information should be in UAAG proper, and what should be in Implementing UAAG. Once UAAG is done, it cannot be changed; however, Implementing can be updated. Therefore, it might be wise to move some of the information from the Into of UAAG to Implementing. {Shawn, 3 June}
  • Would the sections on Relationships to ATAG and WCAG be better in the Implementing document? Also, is there a reason why the "Guidelines" heading and each of the "Principles" headings are all at heading level H2? {Bim 14 June}



  • Second sentence in abstract:
    "User agents include browsers and other types of software that retrieve and render Web content."
    It may be useful to indicate what "other types of software" is meant in addition to browsers.{Sylvie, June 13}
  • Second paragraph, second sentence: "technologies for braille rendering) will be essential to ensuring Web access for some users with disabilities."
    Perhaps it should be made clearer that the responsibility for Braille rendering will need to remain a function of the assistive technologies. .{Bim, June 14}
  • Third paragraph, has a couple of errors in the acronyms: "the W3C" has "W3C" expanded to "the World Wide Web Consortium", so the word "the" is in both plain and title text (this happens elsewhere on the page too); "Web Accessibility Initiative" is written in full but its acronym is also expanded (incorrectly), so the output is "Web Accessibility Initiative the Web Access Initiative". {Bim, June 14}
  • First paragraph: it's not clear to me what "...and through other internal facilities..." means {Paul, June 17}


  • "This section is informative." Should change this to a header: "Informative Section". Other alternatives: reword it to "The section that follows is informative or add a colon so that readers know what follows is information. Otherwise, it's not clear what "this" means - does it refer to the section that follows or the section that the hyperlink points to? {Howard, 17 June}


  • Suggest changing: "Accessibility involves a wide range of disabilities." to "Accessibility involves consideration of a wide range of disabilities." {Howard, 17 June}
  • May be the Working Group can bring more clarifications on the second sentence of follwoing paragraph, give an example of features concerned:
    "Some UAAG 2.0 requirements may have security implications, such as communicating through Application Program Interfaces (API), or allowing programmatic read and write access to content and user interface control. UAAG 2.0 assumes that features required by UAAG 2.0 will be built on top of an underlying security architecture. " {Sylvie, June 13}
  • The fourth paragraph seems like it could be a set of bullet points:

    "Some UAAG 2.0 requirements may have security implications, such as:
    • Communicating through Application Program Interfaces (API)
    • Allowing programmatic read and write access to content and user interface control.
    In such cases, UAAG 2.0 assumes that features required by UAAG 2.0 will be built on top of an underlying security architecture. " {Paul, June 17}

UAAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

  • I would link from the 3 bullet items - Principles, Guidelines, Success Criteria - to where readers can read the specifics of each of these items - i.e. where they can read the 5 "principles"{Howard, 17 June}
  • The Principles bullet should read, "At the top layer,"... Omitting the word layer caused me to trip while reading Principles 4 and 5 are new and need more than just naming. The meaning of facilitate programmatic access and comply with specifications and conventions is not clear, and a brief description does not appear for a very long time. Please give each a brief description when they first appear. {Wayne}
  • Agree with Wayne, this isn't easy to read. Perhaps a nested list would help too because separation (and therefore an understanding) of principles 4 and 5 is complicated by the need to use the word "and" twice so closely together. On first reading this sounded like one principle to me. {Bim 14 June}
  • The three different levels of conformance are not obvious to read, in particular level A. The way it is written, it makes believe that there is a highest level whereas the highest level is called A. therefore, it may be helpful to write that the lowest level is called A and the highest is called AAA.
    Text concerned: "Three levels of conformance meet the needs of different groups and different situations: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest). {Sylvie June 13}
  • First paragraph includes the following items "...explanatory intent, examples and resource links." The way this section is written, I expected these items to have their own bullet points. If these items don't get their own bullets (or possibly are meant to be included under the bullet "success criteria"), then the first paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect this meaning.

    For example, this paragraph might read:

    In order to meet the needs of different audiences using UAAG, several layers of guidance are provided, including overall principles, general guidelines and testable success criteria. Each layer may include explanatory intent, examples and resource links. {Paul June 17}

UAAG 2.0 Supporting Documents

  • (referred to as the "Implementing document" from here on) should probably read as (hereafter referred to as the "Implementing document") {Paul, June 17}

Components of Web Accessibility

  • As this section directly references ATAG and WCAG, perhaps it should be followed by the sections that explain the relationship between UAAG and the other two sets of guidelines. Perhaps even move the "Relationship" sections into the Implementing document and link to them? {Bim 14 June}

Levels of Conformance

  • I don't understand one of the "Factors that were considered in the process of determining the level to a success criterion", fourth bullet:
    "implementation difficulty – ranging from deterministic to inferential" {Sylvie, June 13}
  • Agree with Sylvie, plainer terms would make the meaning clearer and easier to translate. {Bim 14 June}

Definition of User Agent

  • This appears to be identical to the "Definition of a User Agent" in the Implementing document. Could it be tersified in one or the other? {Bim 14 June}

I had trouble with the What Qualifies section. The word order tends to make it more confusing than it needs to be. I understand that we need to include procedural as well as declarative languages, but is there any other kind of programming language. Are you making your point? Are you trying to say no programming language is excluded as a basis for generating user interface? {Wayne 16 June}

My revision:

What qualifies as a User Agent?

These guidelines employ the following tests to determine if software qualifies as a user agent. UAAG 2.0 divides potential user agents into

  • platform-based application
  • extension or plug-in
  • web-based application

If the following three conditions are met, then a platform-based application is a user agent:

  1. It is a standalone application, and
  2. It interprets any W3C-specified language, and
  3. It provides a user interface or interprets a procedural or declarative language that may be used to provide a user interface

Example Qual-1: A standard browser.

If the following two conditions are met then an extension or plug-in is a user agent:

  1. It is launched by, or extends the functionality of a platform-based application, and
  2. Post-launch user interaction is included in, or is within the bounds (run time scope) of the platform-based application

Example Qual-2: Any media player or browser enhancing extension.

If the following three conditions are met then web-based application is a user agent:

  1. The user interface is embedded in an application that renders web content, and
  2. The user interface is generated by a procedural or declarative language; and
  3. Either user interaction does not modify the Document Object Model of its containing document or it is controlled by a procedural or declarative language.

Example Qual-3: Don't have one.

I think the confusion in this section springs from lack of examples, and this also springs from the lack of example of a web-app UA in implementing. The distinction between a general web app and a web app UA is not defined clearly, and maybe the concept is not well defined. That is, perhaps a web-app behaves like a UA sometimes and not at others {Wayne, 16 June}

Modality Independence Principle

  • I thought I was going crazy until I noticed that the anchor in the TOC reads "Modality Independence Principle," while the section it links to is titled "Modality Independent Controls" These are very different things. I personally think this section is ok, just need to change the anchor link to "Modality Independent Controls." {Paul, June 17}

Relationship with WCAG 2.0

  • The relationship between UAAG and WCAG is not very clear: when the application is considered to be a user agent and when not. As WCAG applies in both cases, why is it mentionned here? {Sylvie, June 13}

Relationship with ATAG 2.0

Implementing UAAG

Overall (Implementing)

  • Would it be possible to use structuring elements such as H5s to indicate sections like Intent of SC, Examples and resources? While comparing to the structure of Understanding WCAG 2.0, is there a W3C graphical design that could make each guideline document look similar? {Sylvie, 14 June}
  • Ditto Sylvie's comment. {Paul, 17 June}
  • Examples: change some of the names to be more diverse {Shawn, 3 June}
  • CSS to add more space between chunks of text, especially more space above new SC. Also, increase leading throughout. {Shawn, 3 June}
  • change "Return to Guideline" to @@ {Shawn, 3 June}

Introduction (Implementing)

Definition of User Agent (Implementing)

  • Third paragraph: the link to "What Qualifies as a User Agent" is followed by the name of the current document in brackets, isn't this redundant? {Bim 14 June}
  • I think Wayne's comment from "Modality Independence Principle" from above is appropriate here. I like that they use easy-to-follow if-then conditions, but examples are needed for clarity. {Paul, 17 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.1 - Provide access to alternative content.

  • Link to definition of metadata would be helpful {Howard, 18 June}
  • Several occurences in this guideline and may be elsewhere through the doc: in Intent of success criterion X, the document says that non text content is unusable, or "painful". I have never seen this term elsewhere in W3C docs and wonder if it is appropriate.
    Another example in intent of SC 1.2:
    "Some users with visual disabilities may wish to hide images in order to avoid those that are painful (such as those with high contrast)."
    {Sylvie, 14 June}
  • In 1.1.3 Configurable Alternative Content Defaults, first example:
    "Sally is blind. In the browser's preferences dialog box, Sally specifies that she wants alt text displayed in place of images, and that the document should reflow to allow the entire alt text to be displayed rather than truncated."
    As screen readers retrieve the alt text content is it necessary for a blind user to request that the browser displays alt text rather than images? May be the example should be rewritten to reflect real use of alt text by blind users? {Sylvie, 14 June}
  • In Examples of Success Criterion 1.1.6, the disability of the users is not always specified, (e.g. Maximilian or Tom. {Sylvie, 14 June}
  • Agree with Sylvie's comments above {Howard, 18 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.2 - Repair missing content.

  • Why is a link to "Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology" a resource for this particular guideline. I followed the link which brought me to the very top of the Evaluation Methodology Document but I had no idea what I should be looking for or which section to look at. (WCAG-EM) 1.0 {Howard, 18 June}
  • I think an example of what's stated not to do in a & b would be helpful. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what those instructions are warning against. {Howard, 18 June}
  • Examples of Success Criterion 1.2.2, first example:
    The example talks about Franck who is called George in the next sentence. ^Try to check that the names remain the same in each example, in order to avoid confusing the reader. {Sylvie, 14 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.3 - Provide highlighting for selection, keyboard focus, enabled elements, visited links.

  • more white space is needed above Section 1.3.2 and now that I'm looking at this more closely, greater line space is needed throughout between paragraphs and bullet items and above subheadings.{Howard, 18 June}
  • It would be nice to know that more info is available in "Examples of Success Criterion 1.3.1:" for note items 1 & 2. I don't know if there's a way to indicate this without cluttering up the screen. {Howard, 18 June}
  • missing word: In second bullet item under "Examples of Success Criterion 1.3.1": "so he tell where" should be "so he can tell where" {Howard, 18 June}
  • 1st example under "Examples of Success Criterion 1.3.1:". When you refer to "website that uses styles to override visited link color", do you mean font style - such as italic in lieu of a "visited link color." If so, I think you should refer to it specifically as "font style" because style in a css file can include color. In any case, the current sentence is too ambiguous.{Howard, 18 June}
  • missing word: Second sentence: "they working" should be "they are working" {Howard, 18 June}
  • Should "hover" be included in the list of 1.3.1 classes where highlighting is user controlled? Or would this be the same as "selection"? {Howard, 18 June}
  • SC 1.3.1 has three notes. I wonder if it is worth numbering them in note 1, note 2 ... or may be it does not make sense? {Sylvie, 14 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.4 - Provide text configuration.

  • Typo: not sure whether we should indicate them in EOWG ^comments: Summary contains one word "the" that should not be there:
    "The user can control text font, color, and size (1.4.1), including whether all text should be the shown the same size (1.4.2).
    {Sylvie, 14 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.6 - Provide synthesized speech configuration.

  • grammar/style: "and synthesizer speech characteristics like emphasis (1.6.3) and features like spelling (1.6.4)." "like" should be replaced with "such as" if meaning here includes features such as "emphasis" and "spelling". If the features are similar to "emphasis" and "spelling" but different, then "like" would be used.{Howard, 20 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.7 - Enable Configuration of User Stylesheets.

  • 3rd bullet under "Examples of Success Criterion". 2nd occurrence of word "text" should be removed. {Howard, 20 June}
  • similar problem with 4th bullet under "Examples of Success Criterion". "text easiest to read text if text is highlighted" should be changed to: "text easiest to read if it is highlighted" {Howard, 20 June}
  • I wonder if it would be useful to explain acronyms such as in last "Examples of Success Criterion 1.7.1, 1.7.2 & 1.7.3".
    "Mattias has ADHD and finds text easiest to read text·...
    explain what is ADHD? Is it clear to any reader? {Sylvie, 14 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.8 - Help users to use and orient within windows and viewports.

  • Mentioned this above - need more line spacing between end of paragraphs and headings for readability. {Howard, 20 June}
  • Summary is long on this item. Readability would be improved if it was broken up into bullet items. {Howard, 20 June}
  • The meaning of this heading in not clear. Does "use" refer to "windows & viewport" as in "help users to use windows and viewports"? Suggest something like "Help users to orient within, and control, windows and viewports" {Howard, 20 June}
  • In "Examples of Success Criteria 1.8.8, 1.8.9 & 1.8.10:", first example talking about Justin, there is a word repetition: "The word remains selected remains the same so he doesn't have to reorient or find it on the page."
    Second example talks about George who uses a screen reader. In other examples, the text talks about Jorge, not sure if this is the same person as the names are written differently.{Sylvie, 17 June}

Implementing Guidelines 1.9 and 1.10

  • For 1.9 should "or" in header ("The user can view the source of content (1.9.2), or an outline view of important elements. (1.9.1).") be "and/or" or simply "and"? Current wording seems to imply you should only do one or the other. {Howard, 20 June}
  • The examples of Success Criterion 1.9.2 talk about users who display the source code of a page to find out what an untagged image is for or to modify style sheets. I am not sure that these examples are realistic as users need to have knowledge of code to have a look at lines of source codes. Either the group should explain that these users have already good knowledge of page coding, or the examples should be rewritten. @@Eowg thoughts on this are welcome. See for example the users' reactions in Jaws 14 who can set their screen reader to start reading on a specific place (h, div, and so on) on the page or ignore iframes (like facebook iframes). They are disturbed by the use of code to set this.
    Same comment for example of success criterion 1.10.2, where the user "selects the text he's interested in, opens the browser's debug window, which shows him that the selected text is an element with class "story" inside a paragraph inside a DIV with class "Premiere". He then knows the combination of classes and element types to specify in the user style sheet.".{Sylvie, 17 June}

Implementing Guideline 1.10 - Provide element information.

  • I know what you're saying in the summary but I wonder if there's a better phrase than "content relationship" - perhaps "content hierarchy" or "content metadata" or "parent/sibling relationships." {Howard, 20 June}

Other comments on implementing UAAG

  • SC 2.1.2: example 1: Two names have been used for first example: Amal and Alan. {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • SC 2.1.4: last example refers to a specific device and screeen reader (Iphone and Voiceover). Is it ok to do that, or should the document remain device and screen reader neutral?
    "Ari uses Voiceover on his iPhone to navigate a webpage. He selects an item and is able to activate the element using gestures. This requires sufficient screen real estate to perform gestures without changing focus."
    {Sylvie, 17 June}

typos in implementing UAAG

  • In "Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.1:"
    • Example 2: "Betty, who has low vision, is attempting to create a user stylesheet for a site. She need to know", instead of "she needs to know".
    • 5th example: "Agnes uses the search function to seach through the captions": write search through the captions. {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In Examples of Success Criterion 2.4.3: "Jules is low vision and uses a magnified screen." Better write: "Jules has low vision and uses a magnified screen." {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In last example of SC 2.7.3: "At those times he users his browser's user preference profiles to load a different configuration that’s optimized for the keyboard." Write: "He uses his keyboard"{Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In Intent of SC 2.7.4 the following sentence repeats a word twice and is not understandable to me: "The user agent can accomplish this in multiple including including detecting and implementing the platform accessibility settings, providing an external file to modify, providing access to settings from a separate utility program, providing accessibility options in the installation program, or providing command-line switches to change the user agent's behavior." {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In the 4th example of SC 2.7.4, there seems to be a word missing: "Justin has an attention deficit disorder. He is setting up his new e-book reader and is interrupted while setting the default font colors, then finds he accidentally set his background and font color to white on white. {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In Examples for SC 2.8.1:
    • Third example about Caraway: "In programs she uses a lot she removes toolbars that she doesn't use in order to reduce the probably that the speech program will interpret text input as a toolbar command and click something Caraway does not intend." May be they mean probability?
    • Last example about Jennifer: "she turns on the built-in voice application so she so she can quickly find her way around Linda's phone." So she is repeated twice.{Sylvie, 17 June}
  • there is only one title of 2.8.2 reset Toolbar configuration, and no text in it. {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In the first examples of Success Criterion 2.11.1: one word repeated: "Jill is blind. She browses browses the web using a screen reader to listen to the text of web pages." {Sylvie, 17 June}
  • In Intent of Success Criterion 2.11.2 : last sentence of the note before examples: placholder instead of placeholder.{Sylvie, 17 June}
  • Examples of SC 2.11.2:
    • second example word repetition: "When he is ready to he is ready to hear it, he navigates to the placeholder".
    • third example, a sentence that is not easy to understand: "Evan has configured his mobile phone to so any audio or video file displays a placeholder with a triangle "play" icon."{Sylvie, 17 June}