List of comments on “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0” (dated 11 December 2008)

There are 34 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).

1-20 21-34

question comments

Comment LC-2725: WCAG Compliance: Commenter: Robert Owoo <afrinique@gmail.com> (archived message); Context: Document as a whole; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
I just wanted to enquire about the WCAG standard.
I am looking to design a website and wanted to how much it would cost us to
implement these standards?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: Thank you for your request for information. Were sorry, it is beyond the scope of the WCAG working group to provide estimates of costs involved in implementing the wcag 2 standard. We would suggest you contact several professionals who provides WCAG 2 services and have them provide quotes.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2762: minimum contrast: Commenter: David Torres Leal <dtorres@technosite.es> (archived message); Context: WCAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance; Status:
Not assigned; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Hi everybody!!

I have checked out a lot of information about the Success "Criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)" and in all cases it just refers to text and images of text. What happens to essential images such as icons, pictograms which do not contain text? Do not they have a minimum contrast ratio?

All of us know that some images should have a minimum contrast ratio in order to be noticed by eyesight people.

Best Regards and thanks in advance,
David Torres Leal; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: Thanks for your comment. The WCAG requires contrast on text and background only, not on other types of objects that contain non-textual information. The logistics of testing for this and the complications of exceptions and other considerations led the WCAG team to this decision, although we think it is a good idea to provide sufficient contrast on other types of information.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2942: Captions for video in foreign language: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message); Context: 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded): Captions are provided for al...; Status:
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Name: Makoto Ueki
Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Affiliation:
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.2.2
Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Caption for video in foreign language
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
When a video is presented in foreign language, which language should be used for caption?

For example, a video is embeded in a Japanese web page. In the video, a person speaks English. But the video is intended for Japanese users. Which language should the author use for adding caption to the video in order to meet SC 1.2.2, Japanese or English?

Proposed Change:
Just want to clarify. Thank you very much in advance for your time.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Notes added to https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2; Resolution: The goal of the captions as defined in 1.2.2 is to provide access to the video content for deaf and hard of hearing users, but can be confusing regarding which language to provide the captions. The working group believes that captions are intended to be the same language as the audio, so captions for a video where a person speaks English would be in the English language regardless of where the video is displayed. To provide information appropriate for Japanese native speakers who do not understand English, the web site or video provider may elect to provide subtitles with a translation of the content from English to Japanese. The WCAG definition of captions differs from subtitles in that captions include text for non-spoken information, whereas subtitles typically provide just a translation of the spoken information in a video. To support the greatest number of viewers the WCAG working group encourages that the subtitles providing the translation include additional information such as sound effects and speaker identification. The working group acknowledges that this is an area that may require further consideration as it considers requirements for possible future changes to the WCAG specification, and as a result we have included notes about this issue in our wiki for future reference.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2922: Are ARIA landmarks required?: Commenter: Glenda Sims <Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>> (archived message); Context: 1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and...; Status:
assigned to Joshue O Connor; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
I need clarification on *2.3.1 Info & Relationships*. Can you tell me if
my interpretation is correct:

I think it is possible to pass WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1 without using ARIA
landmarks. As much as I love ARIA landmarks...I do not think they are
required in WCAG 2.0.

I always recommend them, but I don't currently have my team call a WCAG 2.0
violation on SC 1.3.1 if ARIA landmarks are missing.

Thanks in advance for your insight (as you might guess, the Deque
Accessibility Experts are not in agreement in how to interpret this).; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: Thank you for your comment. It isn't a violation of WCAG to NOT use landmark roles. Nor indeed any other aspect of ARIA, it is of course desirable when needed. Your approach, recommending the use of ARIA landmarks, and indeed, other ARIA role, states and properties as required is laudable - but they are not mandatory to meet any specific success criteria. NOTE: - ARIA11 is documented as a sufficient technique for SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.1 and like most techniques, is not the only way for passing these SC.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2766: multiple search buttons: Commenter: <noreply@w3.org> (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
Not assigned; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
ex3. Optional button
https://www.google.com/
The reading and focus order would be:
- text field
- "Google search" button
- "I'm Feeling Lucky" button

There is a text field for search and a search button which is followed by an optional button "I'm feeling Lucky". Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there is the optional button before they press the search button. Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2 and/or 2.4.3?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group to confirm the intent of both SC in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.

Thanks so much in advance for your time and trouble.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: This is not a reading order or focus order problem. The order of the controls is the same for everyone and preserves meaning. The more interesting WCAG question is about SC 4.1.2: what is the programmatically determined name for the text field? A name that makes it clear that this is a parameter for either of the following buttons would be most helpful to the AT user. We are adding a note to determine if a change of requirements is appropriate for a future version of WCAG: see http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Post_WCAG_2.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2767: Search button followed by search options: Commenter: <noreply@w3.org> (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
Not assigned; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Name: Makoto Ueki
Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Affiliation: WAIC(Web Accessibility Infrastructure Committee in Japan)
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.3.2
Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Search button followed by search options
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
We'd like to make sure if the reading order of the following example "affects its meaning" and the focus order "preserves meaning and operability.".

ex2. Search Options
<input type="text" title="keyword">
<input type="submit" value="Search">
<input type="radio" name="optionsRadios" id="optionsRadios1"
value="option1" checked>
<label for="optionsRadios1">Search example.com</label>
<input type="radio" name="optionsRadios" id="optionsRadios2" value="option2">
<label for="optionsRadios2">Search the web</label>

There is a text field for search which is followed by radio buttons providing search options. Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there are the radio buttons before pressing the search button.
Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2 and/or SC 2.4.3?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group to confirm the intent of both SC in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: I think that this is an accessibility issue. If the radio buttons are after the submit button, a person who is blind will most likely miss that if they are interacting with the form for the first time.; Resolution: Thank you for your comment. The working group agrees that this is not a good design for a form, but this issue is likely to affect all users, not only users with disabilities. As a result, this practice would not violate 1.3.2, but should be discouraged.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2768: Text field followed by instructions: Commenter: <noreply@w3.org> (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
Not assigned; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Name: Makoto Ueki
Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Affiliation: WAIC(Web Accessibility Infrastructure Committee in Japan)
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.3.2
Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Text field followed by instructions
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
We'd like to make sure if the following example "affects its meaning" or not.

ex1. Instructions
<label for="account">Credit card account number</label>
<input type="text" id="account">
<p>15 - 16 digits, no dashes or spaces</p>

There is a text field which is followed by restrictions on the format of data that users must enter. Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there is the instructions for this text field. Or they could perceive it after they input data to the text field.
Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: Thank you for the question. The working group does not regard the described problem as a violation of SC 1.3.2 as the content is an a reasonable order. However, the described situation is problematic for users attempting to complete the form, and we feel that this would be a violation of SC 3.3.2. Technique G184 speaks to this issue (<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G184">http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G184</a>).; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2780: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
ex3. Optional button
https://www.google.com/
The reading and focus order would be:
- text field
- "Google search" button
- "I'm Feeling Lucky" button

There is a text field for search and a search button which is followed by an optional button "I'm feeling Lucky". Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there is the optional button before they press the search button. Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2 and/or 2.4.3?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group to confirm the intent of both SC in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.

Thanks so much in advance for your time and trouble.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2778: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> on behalf of WAIC(Web Accessibility Infrastructure Committee in Japan) (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Item Number: Success Criterion 1.3.2
Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Text field followed by instructions
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
We'd like to make sure if the following example "affects its meaning" or not.

ex1. Instructions
<label for="account">Credit card account number</label>
<input type="text" id="account">
<p>15 - 16 digits, no dashes or spaces</p>

There is a text field which is followed by restrictions on the format of data that users must enter. Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there is the instructions for this text field. Or they could perceive it after they input data to the text field.
Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2779: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> on behalf of WAIC(Web Accessibility Infrastructure Committee in Japan) (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Summary of Issue: Search button followed by search options
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
We'd like to make sure if the reading order of the following example "affects its meaning" and the focus order "preserves meaning and operability.".

ex2. Search Options
<input type="text" title="keyword">
<input type="submit" value="Search">
<input type="radio" name="optionsRadios" id="optionsRadios1"
value="option1" checked>
<label for="optionsRadios1">Search example.com</label>
<input type="radio" name="optionsRadios" id="optionsRadios2" value="option2">
<label for="optionsRadios2">Search the web</label>

There is a text field for search which is followed by radio buttons providing search options. Screen reader users might not be able to perceive that there are the radio buttons before pressing the search button.
Does this text field meet SC 1.3.2 and/or SC 2.4.3?

Proposed Change:
WAIC would like to have the answer from WCAG working group to confirm the intent of both SC in order to harmonize JIS(Japanese Industrial Standards) with WCAG.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2964: 1.3.2. Violation?: Commenter: CB Averitt (archived message); Context: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which cont...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Does the W3C find any Meaningful Sequence violations in the examples given?
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
The first example located here,
http://sites.averittweb.com/MyWeb/test/MeaningfulSequencePage/example1/
is an html page. Some functionality, used for reference only, has been replaced with static images. The primary focus is the reading order of the three paragraphs. Is meaningful sequence violated?
The second example located here,
http://sites.averittweb.com/MyWeb/test/MeaningfulSequencePage/example2/
is a static image but is coded very similar to our first example. “Tip" is located near the bottom and is a pop-up modal. Other buttons could be present in the same area as “Tips”. Buttons such as, “keywords”, “hints”, and others. The primary focus is the reading order of where the “Tip” button is located. Is meaningful sequence violated?
This is related to a real life situation and the Deque Experts are not in agreement as to whether or not this is a violation of 1.3.2. We really value your interpretation of this so we can confirm that we are accurately applying WCAG 1.3.2 to this assessment.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: I'm deliberately not providing "the answer" as I would prefer to not start a long chain of meaningful sequence consultations with the WG.; Resolution: Related to 1.3.2 it is important to understand the careful language that was chosen for the success criteria. The phrasing of the SC refers to "a meaningful sequence" rather than "the meaningful sequence" and this was done in order to indicate that there may be more than one possible meaningful sequence. If a group of accessibility professionals debate the merits of more than one particular sequence and are not able to readily reach a conclusion it may be that there is a reasonable argument for either sequence being meaningful, and therefore multiple possible ways to meet 1.3.2.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2972: Timing and time limits: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message); Context: 2.2.3 No Timing: Timing is not an essential part of the ev...; Status:
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
"2.2.1 Timing Adjustable" reads "For each time limit that is set by the content,". "2.2.3 No Timing" reads "Timing is not an essential part of the event or activity presented by the content".

And then, in "Understanding SC 2.2.3", it reads "This differs from the Level A Success Criterion in that the only exception is for real-time events." in the section of "Intent of this Success Criterion".

Is there any difference between "Time limit" and "Timing"? I'd like to know the reason why "Timing" is used in SC 2.2.3 rather than "Time limit".; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: The term Timing was used because it is the more general term. The term Timing can be used to indicate a time limit, and this is what SC 2.2.1 is directly addressing, but it can also be used to refer to a situation where user activities are timed and the information is used to evaluate the outcome, for example in the case of an online test where the user is evaluated not only on the accuracy of their answers but also on the time required to complete the test. In this case there is no time limit that prevents the user from completing the activity (which would be covered by 2.2.1) but the timing is an essential part of the activity In general, for SC 2.2.1 we meant to limit “timing” to just a simple time out on an activity which prevents users from completing an activity beyond a certain period of time. In SC 2.2.3 we refer to the broader issue of timing beyond time limits. As a result, the two SC use the term “Timing” in their titles to indicate their relation to each other, but SC 2.2.1 refers only to time limits.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2941: Social Media Buttons: Commenter: makoto.ueki@gmail.com (archived message); Context: Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content; Status:
assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Name: Makoto Ueki
Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Affiliation:
Document: W2
Item Number: Statement of partial conformance - third party content
Part of Item:
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Social Media Buttons
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Can "Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content" be applied to social media buttons such as "Like!" button and "tweet" button?

In general, scripts and HTML codes are generated and provided by the social media. It is not content that is under the author's control as described in "Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content". When putting these kind of buttons on a web page, authors can't change the scripts and codes.

For example, generated code for "Like!" button of Facebook is:

<button type="submit">
<i class="pluginButtonIcon img sp_plugin-button sx_plugin-button_favblue"></i>
</button>

This would fail under SC 4.1.2 as the name for the button can't be programmatically determined.

There is a social media button which uses CSS background image for the button and it fails under SC 1.1.1 as well. However authors can't change it.

This means any web pages which have these social media buttons can't conform to Level A.

I'm wondering if "Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content" can be applied to these cases.

Proposed Change:
If "Statement of Partial Conformance - Third Party Content" can be applied, please add the information to Understanding document.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: If the code required to include social media buttons does not enable any modification by the page author, perhaps because the content is injected dynamically much in the same way that occurs with many 3rd-party banner advertisements used on pages, then the statement of partial conformance may be applied to those areas. It is also important to note that a page with a statement of partial conformance for such a button does not conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A as a result, and the statement of partial conformance helps to clarify this. Please see the Understanding document on Statements of Partial Conformance for more information (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial). However, not all social media buttons are created in the same ways, so it is impossible to say that all social media buttons will have this problem, and it is important for authors to evaluate the accessibility of the button options available and do their best to find options that will result in accessible experiences for users.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

general comment comments

Comment LC-2727: Trying to locate information on the W3C site: Commenter: Alan Gelder <alan.gelder@dpi.vic.gov.au > (archived message); Context: Document as a whole; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
As a matter of finding info on the W3C site, I am finding it very difficult.

Navigation on the pages I have looked at are drastically different:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web/principles
this one has tabs

http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility#examples
this one a completely different design

http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php
this one has quick links and page contents in one form of anchored links

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/SCR28.html#SCR28-description
here the anchored links are presented differently

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/
this one the menu has disappeared, fair enough it's a note/report thing.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
this one has a menu where I can choose what I see on the page, though it is not entirely clear. But it's an interesting approach - accessible compiant?

Ok, these are different parts of what the W3C do, but it is confusing to get around these pages because nothing appears consistent in the design.

Anyway, my problem is that I am just trying to find the wcag advice re mega menus, anchored links, and scrolling/marquee images. I have tried Googling without much success, including the top level w3c google search option.

If you have any tips re where this info sits or how to find it easily, that would be terrific!; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: The organization of content of the W3C Site is beyond the control of the WCAG WG. Please contact Shawn Henry of the Education and Outreach Group with suggestions or to seek advice on how to best navigate the WAI portion of the W3C site. For the W3 site in general - please contact the Webmaster.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2760: Commenter: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>> (archived message); Context: WCAG 2.0 Supporting Documents; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Refer URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/ARIA1
Note the statement made under 'User Agent and Assistive Technology Support
Notes' which states that IE 8 does not support aria-describedby at all. I
tested the aria-describedby property using JAWS 13 and IE 8 and it did work
barring minor issues. Therefore, I question the credibility of this
statement. Note that in IE 8, the aria-describedby property on the text
programmatically tied to the control is spoken twice (which could be due to
the use of landmark roles).

Proposed Change: Change the latter part of the sentence to read, "IE 8
partially supports aria-describedby ..."; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2685: Web page colours: Commenter: Les Delaney <lesdelaney@oneseniors.com.au> (archived message); Context: 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text...; Status:
Not assigned; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
P L E A S E make the suggestion to webpage designers to be carefull of their colour choices!

Light grey - light blue and other pale colours on pale and white bacgrounds ARE JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO READ for people with dyslexia and poor eyesight. WHY do they persist in making life a misery for these people? PLEASE have the designers make better choices!!!!; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: We agree that many websites introduce serious accessibility problems with their color choices. If webpage designers are meeting WCAG 2.0, they will be providing sufficient contrast for text. Success Criterion 1.4.3 require a contrast of at least 4.5 to 1 for text. Please let website owners know that they are causing you problems, and refer them to WCAG 2.0 for guidance on how to provide more accessible content. We don't have any way of identifying or commenting to individual violators.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2571: Touchscreen Accessibility: Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> on behalf of JIS (archived message); Context: 2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality of the content is operab...; Status:
assigned to Gregg Vanderheiden; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Touchscreen issues are covered by WCAG 2?

SC 2.1.1 requires the keyboard accessibility. What about a touchscreen interface?

For example, 'onmouseover' and 'onkeypress' don't work on the touchscreens such as iPhone and iPad.

Does WCAG 2 require the touchscreen users to buy and use a keyboard for such devices?

Proposed Change:
Just to make sure if WCAG 2 covers touchscreen issues or not. WAIC need an answer from WCAG WG in order for JIS X 8341-3:2010(our standards) to harmonize with WCAG 2. Thank you very much.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution: SC 2.1.1 covers the issues of touchscreen interfaces. By requiring that all functionality be available from the keyboard, WCAG ensures that a page will work and be accessible even if onmouseover etc does not work. Everything that onmouseover accomplished would also be available through "onfocus" or some other keyboard accessible technique. Since all of the touchscreen devices known to the Working Group, including Android and iOS, also allow connection of a keyboard (wired, Bluetooth or other) such a keyboard (or AT acting as a keyboard) could be used to access the web page through that client. If a person found a device that didnâ€™t support a keyboard, they should skip that one and use one that does. In that case the problem isn't the web page (which WCAG covers) but the device (which WCAG does not); (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

typo comments

Comment LC-2716: errata: close of hypertext anchor </a> is misplaced: Commenter: Bruce Bailey <bailey@access-board.gov>; Context: 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): For Web p...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
In SC 3.3.4, there is a defined term, "user-controllable" (followed by the word "data"). From the linked term in the glossary, it is clear that the term being defined is "user-controllable data" (and *not* just "user-controllable").
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#user-controllabledef

Proposed Change:
Move the word "data" inside the hyperlink or update and/or update the errata document.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: Is user-controllable linked from other locations in W3C (WCAG) documentation in different contexts than from SC3.3.4? Does user controllable refer to other things besides data? If so, then perhaps the definition needs to be changed to account for this. GV: it is not used anywhere else - and the definitions says "data that ...." so this should be "user controllable data"; Proposed Resolution: You are correct. The definition is just about user controllable data We have added this to the errata @@@@@@ > in SC 3.3.4 make the link be <user-controllable data> > and change the definition in the glossary to "user-controllabe data"; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2588: Missing period at end of numbered list.: Commenter: Bruce Bailey <bailey@access-board.gov> (archived message); Context: 4. Only Accessibility-Supported Ways of Using Technologies:...; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Most list items end with a comma or period with the last item in the list ending with a period.

Proposed Change:
3.when any technology that is not relied upon is not supported by a user agent

->

3.when any technology that is not relied upon is not supported by a user agent.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Proposed Resolution: this typo has been logged to add to the errata @@@@@ > add period to last item in list in conformance requirement 4; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

substantive comments

Comment LC-2758: Commenter: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> (archived message); Context: in; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Comment:
Refer URL
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/minimize-error-identified.html
Second para, second sentence, under 'Intent of this Success Criterion'
reads "For example, certain technologies can specify that the user's input
must not fall outside a specific range, or that a form field is required.
Currently, few technologies support this kind of programmatic information,
but the Success Criterion does not require, nor prevent it."
I think there are the issues with the statement quoted above.
1. "Certain technologies" is not clear. Does it mean ARIA, title
attributes, etc.?
2. "Few technologies" is not clear either.
3. "but the Success Criterion does not require, nor prevent it" does not
sound correct grammatically and would be better served using neither / nor.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes:; Resolution:; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

1-20 21-34

Add a comment.