Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
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-2444
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
This technique does not require that the control be at the top of the page. This is simply good practice so we included it in both of the techniques to encourage it. However since it is not required for the technique, it is in neither the description nor the test. | tocheck |
LC-2445
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
Techniques are all optional by nature. You do not have to use this technique. If you are not using this technique to meet SC 1.1.1 for an image, it doesn't matter that the image will fail the test procedure, that is, that it will not have a longdesc attribute. If you want to use something other than longdesc, then you wouldn't use this technique and you wouldn't encounter the test. [DONE] Add a section "testing techniques" in the introduction to techniques, starter text "Test procedures for techniques apply only to verify proper application of that technique. They do not test the success criteria. Tests of the success criteria require first determining which techniques are applicable, and then following the test procedures for those techniques." Cycle through WG ACTION-125` |
tocheck |
LC-2446
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
“Adequate†is not a testable term. We have made a decision not to use any subjective terms like “adequate†in any of our tests because it makes them no longer objective. It is unfortunate but the tests must be objective to have the inter-rater reliability needed to be considered testable. | tocheck |
LC-2447
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
There seems to be common misconception that techniques are required. Techniques are simply ways of meeting particular success criteria. You do not have to use this technique. But if you use this technique (which is “using the scope attribute…â€) then you would in fact have to use the scope attribute or else you would not be using the technique. Change description of H63 change to begin "The objective of this technique is to associate header cells with data cells <ins>in complex tables</ins> using the scope attribute." |
tocheck |
LC-2450
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
In the instructions it says, just above the list of sufficient techniques, that you must do one of the numbered items. You do not need to do all three (or more). Therefore, techniques often will contradict each other. They are different options or different ways of doing something. You may choose among them. You do not have to do all of them. In fact you don't have to do any of them actually. These are just suggestions, ways of meeting it that the working group has declared to be sufficient. You may come up with a different method altogether, and, if it meets the success criteria, it meets the success criteria. Someday you may be called on to prove it by someone. Therefore it is convenient to use ones where you have evidence that the working group said that it would be sufficient. But it is not required. No techniques are required. | tocheck |
LC-2451
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
You do not need to use this technique if you don't want to. You can do other things. Use of any technique is optional. They are just ways of doing it if you want to use them. The motivation is not to about CSS vs using HTML elements to style the text. The motivation is to use CSS to control text styling more closely, rather than using images of text to control text styling. If you choose to use the technique that says “Using CSS to…†Then you have to use CSS because that's what the technique is. So, if you use the “using CSS†technique then you must use CSS. But there is no requirement that you use this technique. Regarding use of deprecated elements: Using something that is deprecated is not invalid. It also is not an accessibility issue. It may not be good practice but would not cause one to fail this technique. If incorrect use of CSS results in invalid visual design, it will affect all users, not just those with disabilities. |
tocheck |
LC-2466
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
If the two columns are equal in width then it is impossible to not meet this criteria with ZOOM. Simply increase the zoom to 200% and the column will fit very nicely on-screen and allow the user to read all of the text in the column without horizontal scrolling. They can then move over to the other column and read the other, without horizontal scrolling as well. Note that the horizontal scrolling requirement is only at level AAA. Therefore the zoom would satisfy level AA unless of course the browser does not support this. Therefore this technique would work at level AA but not at level AAA for a full width page, but it would work at AAA for a page with 2 equal width columns. You will note that G178 is listed as sufficient for 1.4.4 which is at level AA but it is not listed as sufficient for 1.4.8 which is at level AAA. |
tocheck |
LC-2436
Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> (archived comment) |
|
The purpose of this technique is to talk about plain text. If you add markup as you suggest and is no longer a plain text document (unless you consider an HTML document to be plain text). This does create constraints on how you write a plain text document. But it does give you a way of creating plain text documents can be deciphered. And that is the purpose of the technique. To allow you to create a plain text document that has no markup but yet can be deciphered by a screen reader designed to work with plain text documents that constrain themselves to these rules. |
tocheck |
LC-2493
Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> (archived comment) |
|
Proposed response: All of WCAG, not just the plain text techniques, applies to content served from the web. See the definition of Web page in the WCAG glossary <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#webpagedef>. We feel it would be misleading to add this clause to the Plain Text technique titles and not to all the other technique titles, and that adding it everywhere would make it harder to understand techniques from their titles. |
tocheck |
LC-2457
Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> (archived comment) |
|
We agree that it would have been possible to cast H93 and H94 as failures instead of as techniques. However, we disagree with your assessment that they are not HTML techniques, and we believe it is clear how to apply them to satisfy SC 4.1.1. We don't think the benefit of recasting them as failures justifies the work involved or the confusion that would result from moving this information from techniques to failures. | tocheck |
LC-2471
Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> (archived comment) |
|
H89 is only listed as an advisory technique for SC 3.3.5. Did we miss someplace where it is erroneously listed as a sufficient technique? | tocheck |
LC-2491
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
As written, this failure does not apply to 3.2.2, since changing focus is not an input action. | tocheck |
LC-2492
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
We do not feel that F60, as written, should be a failure of SC 3.2.2, but it is causing us to discuss issues related to text fields and SC 3.2.2. We will be discussing potential modification to F37 or adding new failures for SC 3.2.2. We have added an action (ACTION 150, http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/track/actions/150) for you to help us draft this new failure or modify F37. We are not adding this failure for this update, since it will need to go to public review and the review period for this update has ended. | tocheck |
LC-2434
Aurelien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr> (archived comment) |
|
This technique is describes how the author can implement the missing keyboard support in the Flash content itself. We have modified the description to make it clearer that this is the purpose of the technique. In the first paragraph of the description, change "it is not possible to move keyboard focus..." to "many browsers do not support moving keyboard focus..." At the end of the first paragraph of the description, add "This technique is designed to let the Flash author address this issue and provide support for moving focus between the Flash content and the HTML content via the keyboard." |
tocheck |
LC-2438
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
We consider that ALT text is a sufficient label for non-text content per this definition of Label. The purpose of this technique is to be sure that people who cannot see know what the non-text content on the screen is. If the person can see, presumably they can identify the nontext content by looking at it. The technique as written would ensure that people who cannot see are able to determine what the nontext content is via its alternative text. The only reason that the text is removed in the example is simply to see if the alternative text really did stand in for the function. We think the use of the word "label" in this technique may be confusing, since label is often used to mean visible text that identifies a control. We are revising the technique to clarify this issue. Change the title of G68 to be "Providing a short text alternative which describes the purpose of live audio-only and live video-only content" In G68, change the following beginning of the description to read: "This technique provides a short text alternative for Live audio-only and live video-only content. This text may be used in combination with a full alternative for time-based media (for audio or video), or in combination with audio description (for video). Revise test procedure to read: 1. Remove, hide, or mask the non-text content. 2. Display the short text alternative(s). 3. Check that the purpose of the non-text content is clear - even if content is lost. For consistency of terminology, change the title, examples, and test procedure of G100 per http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=G100:_Providing_a_short_text_alternative_which_is_the_accepted_name_or_descriptive_name_of_the_non-text_content |
tocheck |
LC-2439
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
Depending on how much data is collected, it may not be possible to summarize it all on one page. For example if the person was taking an essay exam. Therefore either one of these two approaches may be the most logical. insert new step 1 to test procedure: "Check that user is prompted to review the data and confirm" reword existing steps: "2. If user data are collected in multiple steps, the user is allowed to return to previous steps to review and change data. 3. Determine if a summary of all data input by the user is provided before the transaction is committed and a method is provided to correct errors if necessary." change expected results to be "Either #2 or #3 are true" |
tocheck |
LC-2441
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
We do not include any quality checks in our techniques since they are subjective. “Adequate†is not a testable term. Unfortunately, we do not feel it is possible to include subjective terms in our testing procedures. We have clarified the test procedure to indicate that it should be descriptive. ACTION: Change step 1 of test procedure to read "Check that there is link to an audio alternative which describes the contents of the video immediately before or after the video-only content." |
tocheck |
LC-2442
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
This technique does not require that the style switcher be at the top of the page. This is just good practice and therefore we included it in the examples to encourage it. It is therefore not in the technique nor in the test criteria. However, we have added a note about this in the description. ACTION: Add to end of first paragraph of description: "Placing the link or control prominently on the page will assist users in accessing the conforming content readily." |
tocheck |
LC-2443
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
We only state that they should be documented, not that they should be in the immediate context of the blinking content. For example this might be documented on the opening page of a long document full of things that blink. In fact the switch to turn off the blinking may occur at the front so that it turns off all of the blinking on all of the pages at once. Also, all the techniques are optional. If G4 and G187 are both required then there's no need to put the requirement G4 in G178. If they are not both required then G4 stands as a separate technique. We don't embed techniques and other techniques if they are not needed. Add to end of first para of G187 description: "This feature can be provided either through interactive controls that conform to WCAG or through keyboard shortcuts. If keyboard shortcuts are used, they are documented." |
tocheck |
LC-2448
Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> (archived comment) |
|
Thank you for catching this problem with the test procedure. We have revised the technique to clarify when fieldset should be used. Incorporate changes from http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=H71:_Providing_a_description_for_groups_of_form_controls_using_fieldset_and_legend_elements |
tocheck |