There are 6 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
substantive comments
Comment LC-2966 : Proposal to review guidelines for language markup appropriateness
Commenter: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
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 :Following “HTML and Specifying Language” [1] and “Usefulness of
language annotations” [2] I propose to review guidelines that mandate
marking up changes in language for appropriateness (like H58 [3]).
The primary arguments for this proposal are that 1) determining
language is per definitionem not an accessibility problem, and that 2)
requiring authors to mark up all changes in language is a costly and
unrealistic requirement, and one that may be better and more
efficiently done by software at that.
My interest in pursuing a WCAG conversation has been killed; although
a bit scattered you find materials clarifying and elaborating the
proposal in [1] (also review the comments) and [2].
[1] http://meiert.com/en/blog/20140825/html-and-language/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/thread.html#msg136
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H58.html
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: Currently support for lang changes is provided by JAWS/NVDA/Window-Eyes with IE and FF, but not with Chrome. VoiceOver on iOS supports it with Safari. VoiceOver on OSX does not.
Resolution: The need to indicate changes in language is required by WCAG 2.0 and as this document is not changing we will record your comment in the team wiki as an area that we should review as part of a possible future revision.
Responding to your numbered arguments:
1) When the language changes on a page the assistive technologies are expected to adjust accordingly by switching the speech synthesizer to pronounce the language with appropriate inflection. Most major assistive technologies for people who are unable to read the text directly provide support for this functionality. If a sighted user encounters text in a different language they are able to view the text and determine if they are able to read the language as they are able to view an accurate representation of the information and make that determination. A non-sighted user encountering text that is in a different language than the default language of the page where the language is not correctly indicated will hear information that will be difficult or impossible to identify even if the user understands the language. As a result of this degraded information that impacts users with certain types of disabilities and doesn't impact users without disabilities, the working group considers it an accessibility problem when changes in language are not identified.
2) Marking up all changes does take more time than not marking up changes, but WCAG does not necessarily require that authors do this work themselves. An author could choose to employ a tool or web-based service to identify and properly indicate the language, if such a tool was available to them. There may come a time where the machine identification of language is of sufficiently high quality and is integrated into browsers so assistive technologies can programmatically identify the language without the author doing anything. However, this is not the current state of the technology so authors cannot rely on machine identification of changes in language and will instead need to utilize techniques such as H58 which utilize the lang attribute.
As a final note, it is important to understand that the sufficient techniques are not necessarily the only way to meet success criteria. As technology changes, a new technique may allow authors to meet a success criteria, but it is up to the author to determine whether a published technique or a non-published technique is effective in their particular situation. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2997 : UA support/h69
Commenter: Mark Rogers <mark.rogers@powermapper.com > (archived message ) Context: in (h69)
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Nobody
Abma, Jake
Abou-Zahra, Shadi
Allan, Jim
Auclair, Christopher
Avila, Jonathan
Babinszki, Tom
Bailey, Bruce
Bernard, Renaldo
Bernier, Alex
Blake, Matthew
Boudreau, Denis
Brewer, Judy
Butler, Shari
Campbell, Alastair
Carlson, Laura
Chakravarthula, Srinivasu
Cirrincione, Pietro
Conway, Vivienne
Cooper, Michael
Crutchfield, Elizabeth
Deltour, Romain
Dick, Wayne
Ding, Chaohai
Dirks, Kim
Dixit, Shwetank
Draffan, E.A.
Duggin, Alistair
Eggert, Eric
Elledge, Michael
Faulkner, Steve
Ferraz, Reinaldo
Fiers, Wilco
Fischer, Detlev
Foliot, John
Garrish, Matt
Garrison, Alistair
Gower, Michael
Guarino Reid, Loretta
Hakkinen, Markku
Haritos-Shea, Katie
Henry, Shawn
Hoffmann, Thomas
Horton, Sarah
Isager, Kasper
Jensen, Tobias Christian
Johansson, Stefan
Johlic, Marc
Johnson, Rick
Jones, Crystal
Joys Andersen, Wilhelm
Kapoor, Shilpi
Keim, Oliver
Kirkpatrick, Andrew
Kirkwood, John
Kiss, Jason
Kraft, Maureen
Ku, JaEun
Kurapati, Sujasree
Lauke, Patrick
Lauriat, Shawn
Lee, Steve
Lemon, Gez
Li, Alex
Li, Kepeng
Li, Liangcheng
Loiselle, Chris
Lowney, Greg
Lui, Edwina
Lund, Adam
Ma, Jia
MacDonald, David
Mace, Amanda
Manser, Erich
Martin, Debra
McCormack, Scott
McMeeking, Chris
McSorley, Jan
Milliken, Neil
Montgomery, Rachael
Mueller, Mary Jo
nicole, windmann
Niemann, Gundula
Nurthen, James
O Connor, Joshue
Oh, Jeong-Hun
Panchang, Sailesh
Pandhi, Charu
Pasi, Aparna
Patch, Kimberly
Philipp, Melanie
Pluke, Mike
Pouncey, Ian
Repsher, Stephen
Rochford, John
Runyan, Marla
Savva, Andreas
Sawczyn, Steve
Schnabel, Stefan
Seeman-Kestenbaum, Lisa
Sims, Glenda
Singh, Avneesh
Skotkjerra, Stein Erik
Sloan, David
Smith, Alan
Smith, Jim
Solomon, Adam
Spellman, Jeanne F
Strobbe, Christophe
Suprock, Greg
Swallow, David
Thompson, Kenneth
Thyme, Anne
Ueki, Makoto
Vaishnav, Jatin
Vanderheiden, Gregg
Venkata, Manoj
Wahlbin, Kathleen
Wang, Can
WANG, WEI
White, Jason
Zelmanowicz, Erica
Zerner, Adam
Zhang, Mengni
Type: substantive
editorial
typo
question
general comment
undefined
Comment :I was doing some research on this technique and the UA notes:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/Techniques/ua-notes/html#H69
Opera hasn't supported keyboard heading navigation since switching from Presto to Blink in July 2013
http://forums.opera.com/discussion/1834402/navigation-over-links/p1
The Vimium extension they mention as a replacement doesn't appear to
support heading navigation either
The currently documented Opera keyboard shortcuts now look identical to other browsers:
http://help.opera.com/opera/Windows/1387/en/fasterBrowsing.html#keyboard
The Firefox landmark extension from TPG has been mentioned as an alternative, but this doesn't support heading navigation either. I've checked both the source code and and installed on a clean VM
https://github.com/matatk/landmarks
The other alternatives mentioned in the H69 UA notes either no longer work on current browsers or don't have working download links.
Conclusion: there's no longer UA support for this technique
Best Regards
Mark
Proposed Change:
Given there appears to be no current UA support for this technique for keyboard users, should it be retired?
If someone does find UA support for it, then the UA notes should be updated accordingly.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2985 : Non-unique ID on its own not a failure of 1.3.1
Commenter: Jason Kiss <jason@accesscult.org> on behalf of New Zealand Government (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
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 :While it is true that non-unique ID value is a failure of SC 4.1.1, and may very well introduce a failure of SC 1.3.1 where that ID value is referenced by another element in order to establish a relationship, it's not clear why two elements that have identical ID values but that otherwise aren't referenced by additional elements or in any one-to-one relationship.
Proposed Change:
Under Failure Example 1, change "An id attribute value that is not unique" to something like "An id attribute value that is not unique and that is referenced by another element to establish a relationship."
Under Procedure, change "1. Check for id and accesskey values which are not unique within the document." into two steps: "1. Check for id attribue values that are not unique within the document and that are referenced by other elements. 2. Check for accesskey values that are not unique within the document."
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: The failure in question was problematic in the ways you describe and redundant to other failures in others. As a result the WG decided to remove F17 entirely.
Failures resulting from missing relationships between specific elements as a result of id attribute value issues are covered in other techniques. (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
editorial comments
Comment LC-2986 : Test H95 is missing step 2
Commenter: Wilco Fiers <wilco@accessibility.nl> (archived message ) Context: in
Status: open
proposal
pending
resolved_yes
resolved_no
resolved_partial
other
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick
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 :Step 2 of the test procedure in H95 only has the text "step_two." as it's value. That doesn't seem right. Also, this feedback form doesn't have H95 listed under the techniques.
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes: Editorial changes already made by AWK
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Comment LC-2994 : Meaning of "Alternate version" is not clear
Commenter: Liam Morland <lkmorlan@uwaterloo.ca> on behalf of University of Waterloo (archived message ) Context: in (G136)
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 :The example suggests that the link text to the conforming alternate version be "Alternate version". This does not clearly identify that the link goes to an accessible version of the same content.
Proposed Change:
Replace: "Alternate version"
With: "WCAG-conforming alternate version"
Or: "WCAG-conforming alternate version of this page"
Related issues: (space separated ids)
WG Notes:
Resolution: (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)
Add a comment .