- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:47:56 -0500
- To: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Hi, Ben, >> Item Number: mapping My comment below refers to the "mapping" doc Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html I suggest organizing the main content of that document by WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint number, rather than by Priority as is in the current draft. Let me know if you need more clarification. Best, ~ Shawn Ben Caldwell wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Your comment (included below) suggests that we organize WCAG 2.0 as in > WCAG 1.0. Can you elaborate? Your proposed change suggests that we > organize numerically, rather than grouping by priorities, but we were > unsure exactly how this proposed change would impact the numbering and > heading organization. > > Thanks much, > > -Ben > > WCAG 2.0 Comment Form wrote: > >> Name: Shawn Henry >> Email: shawn@w3.org >> Affiliation: W3C WAI >> Document: W2 >> Item Number: mapping >> Part of Item: Comment Type: general comment >> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): >> Organizing by WCAG 1.0 Priorities makes it quite difficult to process >> the information. Topics (such as forms, tables) are split across >> different sections and tables. Checkpoints are not in order. >> >> >> >> If it was organized as in WCAG 1.0 (that is, numerically), it would be >> much easier to both understand the differences in how topics are >> addressed, and to find individual checkpoints. >> >> >> >> Proposed Change: >> Organize as is in WCAG 1.0, that is, numerically, rather than grouping >> by priorities. >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 23:48:12 UTC