Edit comment LC-984 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-504 Next: LC-1144

Comment LC-984: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>; 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:
This is a general usability matter; while doing well on this helps PWD, it is not clear that it meets your claimed requirement for inclusion that there be a markedly disproportionate effect on the experience of the PWD user.

Proposed Change:

Re-state filter criterion for practices in terms of "do cover usability enhancements that are readily achievable and make major contributions to mitigating PWD hazards in the browse experience. But generally good usability practices that have a generally comparable benefit for PWD and TAB users are not covered here." I.e. lead with positive because navigation, view controls, and labeling/prompting are general usability strategies and are of the essence in securing a Web that works for PWD.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] [SM] 15/08/06 He is suggesting that we amend the wording in the Introduction Section (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#intro). Is this within the scope of Team B? [SM]If I understand correctly, this comment is suggesting a change in what we have classified as Web Accessibility guidelines and what are usability guidelines, rather than a change to this praticular SC. He is suggesting that we exclude/get rid of what he deems to be "usability" practices that is any practices that do not explicitly benefit users with disabilities. I have suggested a response to the comment on the particular SC but I am not able to answer the suggestion that we leave the "usability" practices.. Aug 1 Team B meeting: Sorcha to request clarification of proposed change from Al Gilman. "... I would like to clarify the point you are making >with one of your comments...When you talk about "the filter criterion for practices" are you referring to a specific part of the document or are you referring to the general reasoning behind the decisions on what guidelines are applicable to WCAG and what are more applicable to usability issues?" "Thanks for the question. The answer is "some of each." In the Introduction http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#intro .. it says: "WCAG 2.0 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. The guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have specific impact on accessibility." In that statement in particular, I feel that the word 'specific' is inadequate. Better to say something like "except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities." I think that the latter wording sets the scope for WCAG a little broader, and a little better. In that sense, my comment applies to the general principles for including or excluding subject matter from WCAG. However, this general rule is at present, I believe, expressed principally in the language I quoted from the introduction. In addition, In my comment I question whether Success Criterion 3.2.3 passes the test for inclusion. You may wish to address that as well, with the aid of whatever clarification on the access vs. usability divide you (and the Group) hit upon." Discussed in the 24 August 2006 telecon: Unanimous Consent: Editors: LC-815, LC-894&LC-1000, LC-973, LC-1060 Team B: LC-609, LC-777, LC-778, LC-915, LC-984, LC-1012, LC-1127, LC-1131 Team C: LC-787 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/24-wai-wcag-minutes.html {Partial Accept} DONE Change wording of Introduction (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html#intro) "WCAG 2.0 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. The guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people. Internal WD updated 25 August. Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0108.html; Resolution: Thank you for your comment. We have adopted your proposed wording in the Introduction. SC 3.2.4 explicitly outlines benefits to people with disabilities in the "Intent of this success criterion" section of How To Meet SC 3.2.4. The intent of this success criterion is to ensure consistent identification of functional components that appear repeatedly within a set of Web pages. A strategy that people who use screen readers use when operating a Web site is to rely heavily on their familiarity with functions that may appear on different Web pages. If identical functions have different labels on different Web pages, the site will be considerably more difficult to use. It may also be confusing and increase the cognitive load for people with cognitive limitations. Therefore, consistent labeling will help.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)