Edit comment LC-614 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-662 Next: LC-897

Comment LC-614: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Lisa Seeman 3 <lisa@ubaccess.com> on behalf of Invited expert at W3C, UB access; 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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0137.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/att-0137/wcagform3ch.html

Comment (including rationale for any proposed change):

Level 3 success criteria:
1. Achieve additional accessibility enhancements.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.

I object to definition. Because many criteria are level 3 only because they are considered too hard to do on all web content does not mean that level 1 and two achieve minimal and enhanced accessibility.
Level 3 is also minimal accessibility

Proposed Change:

change of wording
Level 3 success criteria:

1. Achieve minimal accessibility, or, if the Success criteria can be applied to all Web content, achieves additional accessibility enhancements.
2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMA] [confLevels] It is true that for some people the Leel 3 criteria will achieve minimal acessibility...ie. cognitive, deaf-blind etc... recommend a partial accept. I think the word that may be mislieading is "enhancements" which basically means that there is a certain amount of accessibility present in Level 1&2 which is enhanced in Level 3. This depends on how it is interpreted. If we are talking about overall accessibility as a blanket generic concept Level 3 does enhance the overall accessibility by providing a minimal level for a target audience. I am not sure when we are dealing with Cognitive issues that we can look for "direct hits" in the guidelines (guidelines specifically designed for cognitive issues) I think there is much benefit in looking at all the guidelines for places where they impact *some* people with cognitive issues. In general there are many Guideline whose primary target may be blind people or people other disabililites which also give substantial improvement of accessibility to some people with cognitive issues also. In looking at Level one I would say there are 9 Sucess Criteria that improve access for some people with cognitive disabilities. For instance, I know a lady who has a form of dyslexia that prevents her from using a mouse. For her, every Success Criteria that makes the web site keyboard accessible is a benefit to her, in fact these Success Criteria are crucial to her employment. Some people with cognitive issues may benefit from have headings which programmatically determined because they may use a User Agent which takes advantage of Heading levels. Guidelines that prevent the web site from changing focus unexpectedly help some people with cognitive issues. Guidelines that extend time outs help some people with cognitive issues who are slower to respond. Contrast, and flashing related guidelines help some people with cognitive disabilities. The 4.1 guideline that makes sure all content of the site meets level one swings us back around to apply these issues to other technologies or at least provide the content in the baseline technology which does conform. We should not consider Cognitive disabilities as one big lump. When we look at the guidelines through the eyes of different kinds of cognitive issues we find many Success Criteria that help many different kinds of cognitive disabilities. I recommend a partial accept and rewrite: 1. Achieves additional overal accessibility, and provides minimal accessibility for some individuals. 2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. -- Discussed on the 22 June 2006 teleconference Resolution: Put issue 614 on hold in category of "level descriptions" so we can look at all the level related issues together. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/06/22-wai-wcag-minutes.html previous proposal: Partial accept, propose the following rewrite: Level 3 success criteria: 1. Achieves additional overall accessibility, and provides minimal accessibility for some individuals. 2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. Respond to Lisa. Thank you Lisa, you make a good point and we have adapted the phrase to make it clear that Level 3 provides minimum accessbility for some individuals. The proposed rewrite is as follows: Level 3 success criteria: 1. Achieves additional overall accessibility, and provides minimal accessibility for some individuals. 2. Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. Discussed in the 08 February 2007 telecon: Accepted by unanimous consent. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html {accept}; Resolution: We have completely rewritten this section of the guidelines (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ): The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more important than others. Each success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is essential to some users, and the levels build upon each other. However, even content that conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to every person with a disability. *In general, Level A success criteria achieve accessibility by supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible limits on presentation. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities using a wide range of assistive technologies, from voice input and eye-tracking devices to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able to access content in different ways. In other words, Level A success criteria support the ability of both mainstream and specialized user agents to adapt content to formats that meet their users' needs. *The success criteria in Level AA provide additional support for assistive technology. At the same time, they also support direct access to content by the many people who use conventional user agents without assistive technology. In general, Level AA success criteria place more limits on visual presentation and other aspects of content than the success criteria in Level A. *Level AAA success criteria increase both direct access and access through assistive technology. They place tighter limits on both presentation and content.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)