W3C

Disposition of comments for the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Single page view

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.

CommentorCommentWorking Group decisionCommentor reply
LC-2895 EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> (archived comment)
Summary of Issue: Add "Techniques for Specific Technologies"
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
In WAI announcements and blogs (e.g., http://www.w3.org/blog/2012/01/wcag-techniques-learn-more/) over the last couple of years, we've been clarifying saying this (the proposed change), and it really belongs in the doc itself.

Proposed Change:
In Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/complete-diff.html#understanding-techniques> add a new section, right under the Techniques are Informative section <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/complete-diff.html#ut-understanding-techniques-informative-head>:

<h3>Techniques for Specific Technologies
Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all cases to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to all potential users.
Thank you for your comment.

As a result of our joint EOWG and WCAG meeting, we agreed to replace the text:

"Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that all uses of that technology will meet WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in ways that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria." (found at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-general-tech-specific-head)

with the text:

Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.
yes
LC-2893 Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived comment)
If a color of link text is changed when a mouse cursor is hovering over a link (by using CSS, a:hover), does the changed color also need to have a sufficient contrast ratio to meet SC 1.4.3 and/or 1.4.6?

Proposed Change:
I just want to make sure that the changed color of link text is also required to have a sufficient contrast (or not).
Thank you for your comment. The opinion of the working group is that the color-contrast ratio of the link text when focused or hovered does not need to meet 1.4.3/1.4.6. The goal of the color contrast success criteria is to ensure that content can be read by users, so as long as the links are sufficient contrast when not focused/hovered then they will meet 1.4.3/1.4.6.

It is definitely preferred that focused/hovered link text also meet the contrast ratios as this enables users to re-read and verify the target of the link, but this represents more of a usability issue as the user can easily read the link text by removing focus or moving their pointer off the link.
yes

Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: index.html,v 1.1 2017/08/11 06:40:22 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org