Edit comment LC-813 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1023 Next: LC-1035

Comment LC-813: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com> on behalf of Deque Systems Inc; 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:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Confusing: repetition of requirements for SC at different levels
Question: Does complying with an SC at L1 automatically leads to compliance of an SC at L2?
Example: When audio descriptions for a video are provided (SC1.2.2) then SC 1.2.3 is also being complied with simultaneously, is it not?
In this context what is the difference between â€˜minimum levelâ€™ and â€˜enhanced levelâ€™ of accessibility? In what context ? Who decides if it is minimum or enhanced?
In the understanding WCAG 2.0 doc there are no distinctions highlighted between 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 as far as audio descriptions and level of accessibility are concerned.
Conversely, why is not the SC at L1 for GL 1.1 also listed at L2?

Proposed Change:

Do not repeat requirements at L2 if they are already listed at L1 for a guideline; and do not repeat at L3 what is already stated at L1 or L2 for a guideline.
Signed language interpretation is required only at L3 for 1.2 and this is not repeated at L1 or L2. This is how it should be.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMA] Discussed in the 08 February 2007 telecon: Accepted by unanimous consent. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/02/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not-accept} Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0058.html; Resolution: There is no repeat of success criteria. There may be success criteria at one level that are more stringent than a similar success criteria another level. For instance, in SCC 1.2.2 at level A, there is a choice between providing an audio description or a full text transcript. At Level AA, audio description must be provided if not already chosen as the option in Level A. At Level AAA, a full text equivalent is required if not chosen as the method for Level A. The description of the levels has been clarified (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)