Edit comment LC-2548 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to LC-2513 LC-2532 LC-2545 LC-2546 LC-2548 LC-2552 LC-2573

Comment LC-2548

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeUnderstanding Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for any non-text co... Non-text Content: Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1 Understanding Guideline 1.2: Provide alternatives for time-based media. Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Captions (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): Understanding Succes... Captions (Live): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Sign Language (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Media Alternative (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.3 Audio-only (Live): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.4 Understanding Guideline 1.3: Create content that can be presented in diffe... Info and Relationships: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1 Meaningful Sequence: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.2 Sensory Characteristics: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.3 Understanding Guideline 1.4: Make it easier for users to see and hear cont... Use of Color: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Audio Control: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Contrast (Minimum): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Resize text: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Images of Text: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Enhanced): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Low or No Background Audio: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Visual Presentation: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3 Images of Text (No Exception): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.4 Understanding Guideline 2.1: Make all functionality available from a keyboard. Keyboard: Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 No Keyboard Trap: Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.2 Keyboard (No Exception): Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 Understanding Guideline 2.2: Provide users enough time to read and use content. Timing Adjustable: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.1 Pause, Stop, Hide: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 No Timing: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.1 Interruptions: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 Re-authenticating: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.3 Understanding Guideline 2.3: Do not design content in a way that is known ... Three Flashes or Below Threshold: Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1 Three Flashes: Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1 Understanding Guideline 2.4: Provide ways to help users navigate, find con... Bypass Blocks: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Page Titled: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Focus Order: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Link Purpose (In Context): Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4 Multiple Ways: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Headings and Labels: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Focus Visible: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Location: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Link Purpose (Link Only): Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Section Headings: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Understanding Guideline 3.1: Make text content readable and understandable. Language of Page: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Language of Parts: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Unusual Words: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Abbreviations: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.2 Reading Level: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.3 Pronunciation: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 Understanding Guideline 3.2: Make Web pages appear and operate in predicta... On Focus: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 On Input: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.2 Consistent Navigation: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 Consistent Identification: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.2 Change on Request: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 Understanding Guideline 3.3: Help users avoid and correct mistakes. Error Identification: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Labels or Instructions: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Error Suggestion: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Help: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Error Prevention (All): Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Understanding Guideline 4.1: Maximize compatibility with current and futur... Parsing: Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.1 Name, Role, Value: Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.2 Understanding Conformance Appendix A: How to refer to WCAG 2.0 from other documents Appendix B: Documenting Accessibility Support for Uses of a Web Technology Appendix C: Understanding Metadata Appendix D: References
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

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:

Dear WCAG WG,

There have been some issues raised around WCAG 2.0's coverage of the needs of people with low vision. At a minimum, coverage under Guideline 1.3 needs to be clarified in the Understanding document.

Additionally, we have been re-looking closely at Guideline 1.3 and Success Criterion 1.3.1 along with their corresponding sections in the Understanding document and feel that it is important to revisit this issue.

So this is a brief comment to request that we have further discussion, before the updated version of the Techniques and Understanding documents are published.

Specifics to follow. Thanks in advance.

~Shawn

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: It appears Shawn will provide additional comments on this and that this comment is not complete or actionable at the current time. It is not surprising that there are 1.3.1 issues given that it is a "catch all" for a variety of accessibility issues. When doing evaluations there are usually about twice as many 1.3.1 issues as all the others combined. So yes we may need some revision... it does not appear Shawn has provided "specifics to follow" yet and given our timeline I propose we get her on the phone to give us direction for her comments and then we take it from there so we can get them updated in time. Proposed resolution: revise 1.3.1 after contacing Shawn for specifics.

Proposed Resolution: Thank you. As you know we cannot change the guidelines or success criteria. But nor broaden their interpretation beyond the way they were interpreted when WCAG consensus was reached. However, if you think that the Understanding WCAG 2.0 can be made clearer without broadening or narrowing the interpretation, please submit the language right away so we can consider it for our next release.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)