W3C Web Accessibility Initiative

Archive: Early issues in development of WCAG 2.0

This list is being phased out in favor of Issues tracking for WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

Open Issues

Issues carried forward into ETA

Closed Issues

Open Issues

11. Bidirectional language issues


14 September 2000 - Lisa Seeman. In Visual Hebrew you have to use absolute width with page layout tables to create the appropriate breaks or the text becomes unreadable. This conflicts with current guidelines.

[20021022 - checking w/lisa.]

37. Glossary

Once a glossary has been endorsed by the various WAI groups, WCAG 2.0 should use terms as defined in the glossary. Refer to the minutes from the 11 January 2001 telecon for discussion.

How we are using the word "content" was raised by Ian Jacobs on 16 January 2001. At the 18 January 2001 teleconthe group decided not to change anything until the glossary was solidified.

Non-text content and presentation are also issues raised with the 14 August 2001 working draft.

[20021022 - refer to IJ's latest email for terms. incorporate xtech glossary discussions into ETA]

73. Choosing technologies

The success criteria for checkpoint 4.1 in the 14 August 2001 draftneed work. Is this an exhaustive list? Is it in agreement with the most recent XMLGL?

[20021022 - recently discussed. still an issue? WAC check recent minutes.]

Issues carried forward into ETA

4. Semantics in style


8 August 2000 - William Loughborough. If I use style to convey semantics, how do I pass along the semantics to someone who does not use style sheets? The class name is not something that gets shown to the user. There must be some way to convey intended semantics presented via presentation mode.

Checking with william to determine if it is closed. Working group believes it is (as of 23 August 2001 telecon, issue #4)

Moved forward: this is now issue # 684 in the ETA system and is likely related to metadata techniques.

14. Usability testing of WCAG 2.0

Kynn Bartlett - 19 Sept 2000. We need to test our documents for usability.


Carried forward as issue #685.

22. Public submission of techniques

At the5 October F2F, Tom suggested, "In publishing techniques, encourage people to submit techniques without strictly conforming to the structure of the document." Other suggestions about techniques:


Carried forward as issue #686.

27. Linking between techniques documents

At the Octoboer 2000 F2F (during reports from subgroups)this came up specifically in regards to SVG linking to other techniques documents (like CSS). How should the various techniques documents link to each other?

Carried forward as issue #687,

29. Need for invalid or deprecated markup

At the October 2000 F2F (during reports from subgroups)the server-side techniques group noted: There are some exceptions to the WCAG 1.0 proper markup requirement. To support older browsers, you may need to send invalid or deprecated markup. Currently, this would not conform to WCAG 1.0. How will we handle in WCAG 2.0?

Cynthia Shelly (19 March 2002)took a stab at this in a proposal for the checkpoints related to technology. The group needs to review and come to consensus.

Carried forward as issue #688.

5. Help feature

At the 4 January 2001 telecon it was suggested that we create a help feature similar to Microsoft help to assist people in finding the information they need. Basically, providing a variety of views to accomodate the variety of users of our materials.

Carried forward as issue #689.

38. Ordering of checkpoints

Some people are concerned that the order of checkpoints indicates priority. We expect that as we employ a conformance scheme we will reorder the checkpoints but resolved to make it an open issue so as not to forget these concerns.

[Issue history: At the 11 January 2001 telecon we resolved to include a checkpoint on graceful transformation in guideline 1. Some people felt it should be the first others felt it should go last (refer to the minutes from the 11 January 2001call for further discussion). ]

Carried forward as issue #690.

39. Abbreviations

There used to be a note under "define key terms, abbreviations, acronyms, etc" that read:

only the first occurrence of an abbreviation or acronym occurring in a document need be expanded (@@some would argue against this. particularly those advocating needs of people with reading or cognitive disabilities). Expansion dictionaries, for instance in metadata, may be provided as an alternative to an expansion in the text of a document

However, what does "first" mean. If I can enter a document at any point due to a link to a subheading, then I will miss the "first" occurence of the abbreviation or acronym. At the 11 January 2001 teleconferencethere was discussion about pointing to external glossaries and ensuring that the appropriate context was made clear. For example a glossary could define several meanings for one abbreviation and the author has to make clear which one they intend to be used.

Carried forward as issue #691.

50. Visual presentation

WAC took an action at the 4 April 2002 telecon to find out what are the restrictions on W3C Recommendations in terms of presentation.

Carried forward as issue #692.

52. Examples - good and bad?

All of the examples are of things that will pass the success criteria. Do we want examples of things that won't pass? Might be a lot of examples...

Carried forward as issue #693.

53. Optimizing for disability types

Paul proposed a section of the Introduction called "Optimizing content for Specific Disability Types." However, he does not want to include it in the intro but create a separate Disability-Type Specificity techniques document, with references to it from the Server-Side techniques document (22 August 2001, PB). Or is it part of the server-side scripting techniques and the "appendix" that paul mentioned at the june F2F (refer to WC's question to him on 23 July 2001).

Carried forward as issue #694.

54. Executive Summary

Carried forward as issue #695.

58. Skip navigation link

The following phrase has been deleted:

a link that jumps over navigation links and positions the user at the beginning of the primary content on the page

We seem to agree that this is a technique, but under which checkpoint? Which technologies should we discuss it in?

At the 28 March 2002 telecon, WAC took an action to track what happened to this checkpoint/phrase. Answer, "Why did we get rid of this? Where did it go? Under navigation mechanisms?"

Carried forward as issue #696.

60. Consistent and predictable responses to user actions


There is a reviewer's note about the examples and the success criteria that uses the word "unusual" is considered an additional idea rather than a normative success criteria.

61. Examples of and tests for flicker or non-flicker

Checkpoint 2.6 does not currently have examples. How do you test for flicker? Doesn't it depend on the hardware? Isn't it different for each monitor? Is this an authoring issue?

There was some discussion about this at the 28 March 2002 telecon, Lee Roberts took an action to find out more about tests.

Carried forward. Addressed by a reviewer's note within the body of the relevant checkpoint.

65. Meta data

Charles McCN's comments about meta data (as success criteria for 2.1) are very important but since they deal with machine-generated/readable searches, is that success criteria for 2.1 or 2.7? or does it deal with 1.3 - using markup and database to provide structure...and something more. semantics. This is the other issue Jason has brought up before that we have not captured well.

Carried forward as issue #644.

66. Examples - diversity in interfaces

Most examples are GUI-oriented. We need more diverse examples, for example speech interfaces. Otherwise we will fall into the WCAG 1.0 trap of being general on the surface but assuming GUI agent/HTML-dominated Web underneath. Jason White.

Carried forward as issue #698.

74. Requiring usability testing

Checkpoint 4.3 of the 14 August 2001 draft contains the following success criterion with the associated note:

4. the interface has been tested using a variety of assistive technologies and preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive technologies to determine that assistive technologies can access all information on the page or hidden within the page. Note to reviewers: there is active discussion on the requirement of user testing as success criterion.

Some have said that this is a method and not a success criterion.

Carried forward. Addressed by a reviewer's note within the body of the relevant checkpoint.

77. Documenting assumptions

This combines open issues: 1, 6, 15, 28, 40.

Assumptions that need documenting:

Most of these questions have been answered by asking the author to document their assumptions ala the baseline user agent. Those questions that we haven't answered yet have been carried forward as issue #699.

Closed Issues

2. Terminology


8 August 2000 - Charles McCathieNevile. It still bugs me to have to shift terminology in an arbitrary way (editor note: WCAG 1.0 Guidelines are called Principles in this draft, Checkpoints are called Guidelines, and Techniques are called Checkpoints). And the checkpoints sound like they will be techniques, not checkpoints.


Discussed in the thread "Terminology" (Jason White - 14 August 2000).


3. Editing suggestions


11 January 2001 - Open issues from these suggestions have been created (issues 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Edits were incorporated or the document has changed so much since then they are no longer issues.

12. Suggested edits from 14 Sept. 2000

14 September 2000 - Andi Snow-Weaver.

Edits incorporated:

Open issues created:



11 January 2001 - These edits were incorporated and accepted.

13. Lisa's proposed rewording for principles 3 and 4

18 Sept 2000 - Lisa Seeman


Edits incorporated



11 January 2001 - These edits were incorporated and accepted.

16. Text in images

Len Kasday - 26 Sept 2000. WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 says to avoid using text in images. However, CSS and SVG are not yet supported widely enough to use to create certain effects as needed for branding and logos. Providing text rather than an image seems to be the best accessibility accomodation, but what about the designer's perspective? How will we handle this in the revision and does a clarification need to be published in Errata?


The Errata was updated on 3 January 2001 with a clarification for this issue.

18. Checkpoint 1.1 [28 Sept 2000 Draft]


Refer to the message from Andi Snow-Weaver on 14 September 2000, it contains both Andi's and William's proposals.


New draft published on 21 November 2000 another on 11 January 2001 with "Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content."

19. Checkpoint 1.2 [28 Sept 2000 Draft]

William, Andi, and Wendy feel that the note with further explanation is not necessary and that the checkpoint text is clear enough. Wendy is particularly concerned with the phrase, "Where one component (either the audio or video track) contains no significant information...".



Text was left in in the 21 November 2000 and 11 January 2001 drafts.

20. Guideline 2 [28 Sept 2000 Draft]

It currently reads

Guideline 2: Separate content and structure from presentation and explicitly define significant structural or semantic distinctions in markup or in a data model.


Refer to the message from Andi Snow-Weaver on 14 September 2000.


This guideline text became 2 checkpoints in the 11 January 2001 draft (checkpoints 1.4 and 1.5).

21. Checkpoint 2.2 [28 Sept 2000 Draft]


Refer to the message from Andi Snow-Weaver on 14 September 2000.


In the 11 January 2001 draft, this was generalized to "separate content from presentation" (checkpoint 1.5).

24. Style and Presentation redundant checkpoints [28 Sept 2000 Draft]

The redundancy was discovered at the October 2000 F2F. Discussed at the 12 October 2000 telecon. JW took an action to write 2 checkpoints that will cover 2.3-2.5, and 3.2.


In the 11 January 2001 draft these ideas are captured in checkpoints 3.2 and 1.4.

7. Organizing principles


26 July 2000 - Ian Jacobs. Ian suggests organizing the principles in the following categories:

  1. Requirements related to perception and the senses,
  2. Requirements related to meaning,
  3. Requirements related to usability.


Grouped the guidelines into 4 groups: presentation, interaction, comprehension, and technology considerations." This was discussed at the 2 March 2001 F2F and included in the 28 March 2001 Working Draft.

48. Combine checkpoints on using technologies according to spec and designing for ATs

In reaction to the 31 July 2001 Working Draft, Wendy Chisholm asked if checkpoints 4.2 and 4.3 could be combined. At the 2 August 2001 telecon, the working group decided that they could not.

49. Designing content to transform gracefully, a technique of design according to spec?

In reaction to the 31 July 2001 Working Draft, Wendy Chisholm asked if checkpoint 4.4(Design content so that when presentation effects are turned off or not supported the content is still usable.) is actually a technique of 4.2 (Use technologies according to specification.). At the 2 August 2001 teleconthe WG decided it wasn't HTML-specific because other technologies such as SMIL have default renderings as well.

51. Checkpoints: why or how?

Tom Martin asked if the checkpoints should be generic statements of "what" or "how?" If "what" then we should replace all of the "use markup to..." with something less "how-ish." At the 26 July 2001 teleconthe WG decided to have a mix of both.

25. Graceful transformation (was: 6.4 is a technique for 6.1 [28 Sept 2000 Draft])

JW sent note to the list on 12 October 2000. At 12 October 2000 telecon JW took action to propose new text that subsumes 6.4 into 6.1.


Proposed Resolution

This has evolved into checkpoint 4.4 in the 31 July 2001 draft. It will evolve further in the next draft per discussion at the 2 August 2001 telecon (checkpoint 4.4).


At the 23 August 2001 telecon we resolved that this issue, including a checkpoint for graceful transformation, is closed. There are still issues with this new checkpoint, those are covered in separate issues.

42. Natural language checkpoint

Raised during the 17 May 2001 telecon.

Proposed resolution

The 31 July 2001 Working Draft contains the following checkpoint: 1.4 Identify the primary natural language of text and text equivalents and all changes in natural language.


At the 23 August 2001 telecon, we agreed that this issue was closed because the checkpoint has been added. Issues with the new checkpoint are addressed in separate issues.

45. Proposed new checkpoint: illustrations for processes and relationships

14 May 2001 - Charles McCathieNevile proposes a checkpoint that requires an illustration for every description of process or relationships. "For any description of a process or a of relationships, provide a graphic equivalent." Provides several ideas for techniques.

Proposed Resolution

This suggestion has been incorporated into checkpoint 3.4 as of the 31 July 2001 draft.


Subsumed into open issues #46. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #45).

1. Stating assumptions of assistive technologies


14 June 2000 - Phil Jenkins.We should document the assumptions of the assistive technology capabilities

Proposed resolution

In the draft we reference "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" which has a section "Assistive Technologies and Adaptive Strategies." This should fulfill providing that info. Need confirmation from Phill (who raised the issue) that this is acceptable.


Incorporated into issue #77. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #1).

6. Documenting assumptions


26 July 2000 - Ian Jacobs. Ian suggests that the following assumptions need to be documented:

  1. Responsibilities to different parties - authors, user agents developers, etc.
  2. How the requirements are determined (a combination of user needs and available technology).


Incorporated into issue #77. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #1).

15. Until User Agents

This has been an issue since WCAG 1.0 was released. In the 21 Sept 2000 telecon the group decided to specify "until user agent" requirements in the guidelines and cover implementation issues in the techniques.



Incorporated into issue #77. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #1).

28. No legacy UA's, what then?

the Octoboer 2000 F2F (during reports from subgroups) the SVG subgroup asked: What happens in the case like SVG where there are not legacy user agents. How do we deal with that in general?


Incorporated into issue #77. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #1).

40. Device capabilities - current or acquired?

From 18 January 2001 teleconference- When we refer to "device capabilities" in guideline 1 are we referring to what the user currently has or what they could acquire?


Incorporated into issue #77. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue #1).

56. Divide into separate chapters

As the document gets longer people are getting more concerned. Paul mocked up what the document would look like in separate chapters. This is the direction that many W3C specs are taking with the first page only containing front matter and a table of contents.


To separate into separate chapters as well as provide a single source view. 23 August 2001 telecon (issue 56).

69. Use of the word "natural"

The phrase "natural language" is used in checkpoint 1.4 of the 14 August 2001 draft. There is debate about if we should use "human" rather than "natural." It starts with Joe Clark's message of 31 July 2001.


At the 23 August 2001 telecon (issue 69) we decided to continue using the word "natural" and link to a definition. We decided it was better to be as precise as possible, and as long as the definition is there, people should be able to understand what we are saying.

32. Tool-specific requirements

Raised at the October 2000 F2F. For some proprietary formats, such as PDF, what the author can do is dependent on the authoring tool. Is it helpful to classify those? should this info be attached to the technique somehow?

On 28 March 2002, the group agreed this was an ATAG issue.

34. Mapping between 2.0 and other guidelines

At the 4 January 2001 telecon it was suggested that we not only provide a mapping between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0, but between WCAG 2.0 and other Web guidelines as well. This will help others understand our work as well as help us collect feedback and ideas.

At the 28 March 2002 telecon, we resolved that we want to keep ourselves up to date with other guidelines, but not keep a mapping between WCAG and other guidelines up to date. We will keep mapping of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 up to date.

8. Making checkpoints clear


11 August 2000 - Gregg Vanderheiden. We should not imply that someone needs to follow all of the related checkpoints to satisfy a guideline. If the checkpoints give alternatives, it needs to be clear that implementing one of the two alternatives satisfies the checkpoint.

Overcome by events

9. Audio descriptions


11 August 2000 - Gregg Vanderheiden. Is the requirement to provide an audio description of a visual track redundant with the requirement to provide a text description of a visual track? Are both required? An audio description (synchronized) is prefered, except for people who are deaf and blind.

Checking with Gregg to determine if it is closed. Working group believes it is (as of 23 August 2001 telecon, issue #41)

GV 4 April 2002 telecon: The way we have structured, it is clear what is being asked.

33. Guideline on testability

  • Proposal by Len Kasday - 21 December 2000. A new guideline on testability and 5 checkpoints. Guideline X. Design for so that testability can most easily be verified. Pages should be designed to minimize amount of human effort needed to confirm accessibility.

Overcome by events.

57. Data model

Isn't a data model inherit in the language that you choose? for example, the RDF model vs. the XML model? Therefore, will an author directly insert content into a data model? e.g. refer to the XPath and XQuery data model spec, it's a processor that inserts data into the data model. Is that within our scope? WC proposes we delete the words "data model" from Checkpoint 1.3 Use markup or a data model to provide the logical structure of content.

Overcome by events. Data model not used in latest draft.

63. Style of normative vs non-normative info

Most W3C specs seem to only identify that which is informative and assume the rest normative. There usually isn't much that is informative. Each checkpoint text and success criteria is marked with div class="normative" so that we could apply a style sheet to them later. In the 14 August 2001 draft, marked definitions, examples, and benefits as informative, e.g., "Definitions (informative)".

This is satisfied by explicitly labeled things as informative.

67. Tolerance of synchronizing captions and audio descriptions

Checkpoint 1.2 in the 14 August 2001 drafthas the following success criterion and note:

3. descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they represent to within a tolerance of X. [Note: We need to research the tolerance. Any information on this is appreciated.]

Closed. Geoff Freed responded 28 August 2001 that there is no industry standard.

5. Important


10 August 2000 - William Loughborough. I am very leery of leaving the decision about importance entirely up to the author.


  • 11 August 2000 - Marja-Riitta Koivunen.
    • We ought to label visual effects in some way (class equivalent elements), so that users who want to skip them can do so easily.
    • We need to define some agreed vocabulary for semantic definitions so that user agents can provide means for users to skip equivalents when so wished.


We are using testable criteria (success criteria) that are less subjective. While we need to leave decisions up to the author, hopefully we are defining tests that make it more clear what we consider "important."

Marja's suggestion is related to metadata and annotation techniques and has been carried forward in a number of issues. Also, this is related to skip navigation, a related issue that some folks feel is not covered well in recent WCAG 2.0 drafts.

10. Priorities and conformance



Priorities and conformance information were added to the 26 June 2002 draft. While the exact scheme is still under discussions, the general issue has been addressed.

17. Technology-specific normative info?

Some people feel that there should be normative technology-specific information that an author can claim conformance to. Should we do this? If so, how and what do we call them? People have argued that "technology-specific checkpoints" is confusing because then we will have used the word "checkpoint" in two different layers.

Refer to:


We will write informative technology-specific tests (similar to success criteria, but technology-specific) that will refer to normative success criteria.

23. New requirement: notification and alternatives

The discussion on "cyber-ghettos" and generating views of content at the 5 October 2000 F2F, produced the following 2 proposals for a new requirement:

Other comments and related issues:


These questions will be answered in the server-side techniques. Refer to Consensus Item S1 in Requirements for WCAG 2.0 for the WCAG Working Group position on this issue.

26. Levels of abstraction

From the October 2000 F2F: IJ suggested that there are more or less abstract requirements in three different WAI guidelines. Perhaps the WG should try to establish criteria early on for determining whether a checkpoint is sufficiently or overly abstract. (WC it is not clear to me what is required by the WCAG WG. I have requested that IJ clarify this comment).


We have made the top layer (Guidelines and Checkpoints) abstract in the sense that there is no technology-specific information and that we push most of the details to technology-specific technique documents which will contain technology-specific checkpoints (or whatever they are finally called). Feel that there is consistency in the abstractness between Guidelines and between Checkpoints.

30. Content not intended for users

At the October 2000 F2F (during reports from subgroups), the server-side techniques group asked: What if you have content available but not necessarily for display by the content provider (e.g., in a database)? We can't ignore this because even if it is not intended for users, if it is intended for machines that in some way will help users....(what was the example?) Proposals?? Further questions or comments?

This issue was closed since it is not clear there is an issue here.

31. UA-specific conformance claims?

At the October 2000 F2F (during reports from subgroups), the server-side techniques group noted that it's not clear when you claim conformance that you are claiming conformance for certain user agents. Proposals?? Further questions or comments?


The group resolved to allow authors to declare a baseline user agent. e.g., "baseline user agent requirements have been determined and are documented in metadata and / or a policy statement on the site. " (from the 22 August 2002 public working draft).

36. Hardships and conformance

Proposal by Len Kasday - 30 December 2000. Proposes that we have the following 4 ways to deal with people raising objections over conformance to a checkpoint:

  1. Throw out this Guideline/checkpoint because there's a consideration X objection to it in some circumstances - which implies throwing everything out since there have been objections to the most basic checkpoints.
  2. Just go on like we're doing and arguing consideration X objections to each checkpoint as it comes along, and throw out the checkpoint if the objection is--what--serious enough? affects too many webmasters? What's the criterion?
  3. Focus now only on accessibility and return to the consideration X problem in a comphrehensive, consistent way later. For example,
    • Just say we only defining accessibility, and not considering considerations X (like WCAG 1.0 seems to say)
    • Make a blanket policy allowing violation of checkpoints in cases where there are legitimate consideration X concerns
    • Define "qualified" compliance that refers to considerations X
    • Make a detailed catalog of all the hardships that each consideration may entail.
    • -- your suggestion here --

Gregory Rosmaita and Gregg Vanderheiden propose that for each checkpoint we offer an option that says, "I did not use any of these proposed techniques. Instead I did it like this and this is how it is accessible."


Because we have separated the technology-specifics from the guidelines/checkpoints/success criteria, at the technology-specific level we can say, "here are suggested ways to satisfy the success criteria, if you find something better, please document it." or something like that...

41. Synchronized equivalents for audio-only timed interactions

Raised at the 18 January 2001 telecon. WCAG 2.0 does not address the case of an audio-only presentation that requires a timed response. GV proposes to modify checkpoint 1.2 to read, "Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia and time-based interactive presentations" Others feel that this might be addressed by a combination of 1.1, 1.2, and 2.4.


Addressed by an audio-only-specific success criteria.

43. Content modes for Checkpoint 4.1


New checkpoint added. Refer to issue #649.

44. Revisting Checkpoint 1.1

21 May 2001 - William Loughborough uses XMLGL as a model for repurposing all content, including text. In other words, providing content to illustrate text. Something along the lines of, "provide alternative content for all content and pieces of content"


Added checkpoint that says, "Supplement text with non-text content." We have also discussed using metadata and annotations to provide alternatives and summaries.

46. Illustrating text


Added checkpoint that says, "Supplement text with non-text content." We have also discussed using metadata and annotations to provide alternatives and summaries.

55. Limitations/scope - usability/accessibility

Paul proposed a "Limitations" section that discusses the many limitations of the document, such as "no matter how good our guidelines end up being, they are not going to solve every problem for every person with a disability" and that we include some guidance on usability but it is not exhaustive.

This might be a good place to discuss usability/accessibility conendrum which we have not yet resolved. It sets expectations that we discuss some usability issues but will not attempt to cover them all.


A "scope" sectionw as added to the Introduction.

62. Use consistent presentation

  • The current success criterion needs work.

Previous issues:

  • Overcome by events: wording has changed in recent drafts.

    Is "Use consistent presentation" (3.1) covered by "Checkpoint 2.2 Provide consistent and predictable responses to user actions." and "Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and labels."? Isn't the main benefit of consistent presentation predictability of where to find things for orientation and understanding?

64. Use of the word "default"

In the 14 August 2001 draft, Checkpoint 4.4 reads: Ensure that content remains usable when technologies that modify default user agent processing or behavior are turned off or not supported.

Cynthia cautioned against using "default presentation". However, the following article supports this use of default. From XML content to HTML display. We should also be in agreement with UAAG.


The word "default" is no longer used.

68. Real-time broadcasts

Checkpoint 1.2 in the 14 August 2001 draft has the following success criterion:

if the Web content is a real-time broadcast, it is possible to provide real-time commentary (as with a sporting event) and real-time captioning. If this creates an undue burden, the presentation is available after-the-fact with captions and audio descriptions

There are issues with how it is worded (an if followed by an if), but it also seems to be a statement of fact. (Jo Miller - 14 August 2001)

Jo Clark (16 August 2001) warns that we should not advance play-by-play as something similar to audio description.


The success criteria have been rewritten. Specifically, there is one that now reads, "if the Web content is real-time video with audio, real-time captions are provided unless the content: is a music program that is primarily non-vocal"

70. Device-independent event handlers

Checkpoint 2.5 of the 14 August 2001 draftincludes the following note after the success criteria:

Note to reviewers: In criterion 2, one of the device-specific event handlers must be encoding (e.g., keyboard) although it has been noted that encoding device handlers do not appear to be usable in lieu of direct manipulation (e.g., mouse) in those cases where the action or the result can not be expressed in words. Our challenge is to express this simply. Feedback is encouraged.

We need to make sure that all interaction modes are accounted for. More than one may be provided, but if is not one that I can use, it's no good.


Overcome by events. This text no longer appears in the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

71. Handling input errors

Checkpoint 2.7 of the 14 August 2001 draftincludes the following note which outlines the issues with this checkpoint:

Note to reviewers: This is a new checkpoint that is being explored. It does not have full support of the working group. We know that spelling mistakes are a serious issue for people with writing disabilities and dyslexia. We have generalized this checkpoint to include all input errors but highlight spelling mistakes. Are there other input errors we should highlight? Are there other success criteria we can define? If not, then we will not use the general case and make this specific to spelling errors.


Generalized to read, "Provide methods to minimize error and provide graceful recovery."

72. Annotating with summaries and definitions

The second success criterion of checkpoint 3.5 of the 14 August 2001 draft is table specific. can we generalize it? Is this an example rather than success criterion? It currently reads:

a summary is provided for

  • relationships among cells for tables with nested headings,
  • relationships among cells that span multiple columns or rows,
  • or other relationships that may not be obvious from analyzing the structure of the table but that may be apparent in a visual rendering of the table.

In general, these success criteria need work.


Priority levels for success criteria have split this into 3 separate success criteria.

76. Modularizing the guidelines

Charles Munat proposed on 20 August 2001 to split the guidelines into 3 separate specifications.

  • 23 April 2001 - Paul Bohman proposed disability conformance ratings and in a draft of the intro he published on 10 May 2001, he includes Technology specificity and Disability type specificity axes of conformance. On 22 August 2001, Paul proposes that we continue with the discussion about modularization, and once we have decided how many modules to include, create a conformance scheme that mirrors this modularization.


We are not pursuing this proposal.

78. Color contrast checkpoint

The following checkpoint exists in WCAG 1.0

2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen.

This seems to be lost in drafts of WCAG 2.0. At the 28 March 2002 telecon, the editors took an action to propose wording for a color contrast checkpoint with some success criteria. Lee Roberts, also took an action to draft success criteria.


There now exists a checkpoint that reads, "Ensure that foreground content is easily differentiable from background for both auditory and visual presentations."

75. Broaden "identifying languages" to include other semantic distinctions

Jason White raised this in an editors meeting. That we broaden checkpoint 1.4 of the 14 August 2001 draft to encompass other semantic distinctions. This would make it parallel with 1.3. Or we ought to make it a special case of 1.3.


Recent drafts seem to cover this issue adequately.

47. Success criteria for protocols

As of the 14 August 2001 WD, checkpoint 4.2 contains the following note:

Please help us identify accessibility issues with transport protocols so that we can properly address them in this checkpoint. Our current thinking is that these issues might be server-side issues rather than issues with the content.

What are the accessibility issues with transport protocols such as HTTP? SOAP? XMLP?


Feedback from William Loughborough, Carlos Velasco, and Jason White suggest that the protocol issue is a technique issue related to server-side techniques, web services, and content negotiation and should not be addressed in success criteria.

$Date: 2005/01/11 11:09:43 $ Wendy Chisholm