Please review techniques for 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 4.2

Hi Team C - one of the most important tasks for us right now is to go
through the techniques for the guidelines assigned to us and make sure
they are ready for publication. If we can discover and resolve any
issues with the techniques ourselves, we will avoid using the whole
group's time doing the same thing, and hopefully will be able to approve
the techniques faster and therefore get to Last Call faster.

Below are instructions for doing this review. This is an important task
for us and I'd like everybody to set aside time to work on this.

All the techniques for our guidelines are in the wiki. Start at the
following pages:

2.1: http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guideline_2.1
2.2: http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guideline_2.2
2.5: http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guideline_2.5
4.2: http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Guideline_4.2

For each success criterion in those documents, follow the link to the
"How to Meet" document, where you will see the techniques. Techniques
for which some content exists will appear as regular links, while
techniques that are proposed but not created appear as "uncreated" links
(red to most users). Keeping in mind that we need to develop a minimum
of one sufficient technique and all failure techniques for a success
criterion, please look if we have enough to justify the SC. There may be
good techniques that have not been created, but if techniques exist that
are sufficient to demonstrate success criterion can be implemented,
they're not a priority.

Next, look at each technique that has been created and determine if it's
ready for publication. Each technique needs an applicability section,
description, examples, and tests (description of procedures at a
minimum, test files if easily available). 

Please review each technique for:

1) Clarity
2) Completeness
3) Accuracy
4) Relevance to the SC
5) For code examples, proper code for the language

If you see a situation where some edits could improve or expand on the
technique and this won't change its meaning, please make the edit
directly in the wiki, and send a note to the list that you have done so.
If you're not comfortable in the wiki simply send a description of your
edit to the list. If you think the technique needs to be substantially
changed, please do not edit it directly, simply send a note to the list
about the problem you see and proposed solution.

It's important to make sure everybody in this group has reviewed every
technique, the sooner the better, so please spend some time on it. We
will discuss non-minor proposed changes in upcoming conference calls. I
would like you all to have a level of familiarity and comfort with the
techniques by the end of this process that you would be willing to
answer on a survey "this technique is ready to be published as is" for
every technique. Hopefully the rest of the group will agree with us.

Michael

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:28:28 UTC