Edit comment LC-1318 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-871 Next: LC-953

Comment LC-1318: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Takayuki Watanabe, Makoto Ueki, and Masahiro Umegaki <nabe@lab.twcu.ac.jp> on behalf of JIS WG2; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; 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:
Comment: We think it is a good idea for WCAG 2.0 explaining how aggregated contents conform to WCAG because of their popularity. Aggregated contents must be considered carefully because such kinds of content have been increasing on the web. This paragraph, however, is difficult to understand: This paragraph deals with aggregated content, Web unit, authored units, and aggregated (authored) units, which terms and their differences are difficult. It is difficult to understand what 'aggregated content' means. Thus, Good examples of aggregated content, Web unit, and authored units are needed.

In addition to that we can not understand the responsibility of Web authors and aggregated contents. We also can not understand how authors make a conformance claim to aggregated content.; Related issues: 464 507 1222
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMA] [confAggr] BBC: We should have some additional information in "Understanding Conformance" with examples of aggregated conformance claims and additional explanation. Not sure how to add to example conformance claims here (alongside existing examples) without creating a very complex example. Also not sure if we can clost with a "The WG plans to.." kind of statement. Discussed in the 10 August 2006 telecon: Resolution: send 1318 back to Team A http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/10-wai-wcag-minutes.htm 10 August survey results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20060810teama/results#x1318 Discussed in the 08 February 2007 telecon: Action: Don, Loretta, Sean, David, Andi Gregg to discuss and consider alternatives. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html Discussed in the 19 April 2007 telecon: resolved: 464, 507, 1222 and 1318 as amended http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/19-wai-wcag-minutes.html {Accept}; Resolution: We have completely rewritten the conformance section. We have removed the terms authored units and aggregated (authored) units. We have made conformance claims less regulatory and more descriptive, that is, a conformance claim describes what is conformant to the guidelines. We think it is more appropriate for policy makers to determine appropriate exceptions. We have provided a way to make a statement about parts of a page that do conform if the whole page doesn't. We have clarified the situation by removing all exceptions and adding the following at the end of the conformance section: Note: If pages can not conform (for example, conformance test pages or example pages) they would not be included in the conformance claim. Statement of partial conformance (See http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#conformance-partial ) Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, or an article that allows users to add comments to the bottom. Another example would be a company or individual who compiles a page from multiple sources. Sometimes, the content from the other sources is automatically inserted into the page over time. In both of these cases, it is not possible to know at the time of original posting what the content of the pages will be. Two options are available: 1. A conformance claim is made based on best knowledge. If a page of this type is monitored and kept conformant (non-conforming content is immediately removed or made conforming) then a conformance claim can be made since, except for error periods, the page is conformant. No conformance claim should be made if it is not possible to monitor or correct non-conforming content. 2. A "statement of partial conformance" is made. A statement that the page does not conform, but could conform if certain parts were removed can be made. The form of that statement would be, "This page would conform to WCAG 2.0 at level X if the following parts from uncontrolled sources were removed." 1. This "statement of partial conformance" cannot be used for content that is under the author's control. 2. The "following parts" of the page that would need to be removed would be described in terms that users can understand. (e.g. they can't be described as "all parts that we do not have control of" unless they are clearly marked as such.); (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)