W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Two review versions of WCAG2ICT

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:31:15 -0500
Message-ID: <50C8E993.4090007@w3.org>
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
CC: WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Thanks, made edits as described below and posted to

Peter Korn wrote:
> Hi Michael, gang,
> THANK YOU for doing this.  Here are my thoughts on reviewing these
> documents (and particularly the diff document, which is incredibly
> helpful):
>     * In the first paragraph of Key Terms, you note the "set of
>       documents" substitution (important intro text, which I think we
>       forgot to survey - but isn't a problem that we didn't survey
>       it). I see from proposal #6 at
>       https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/introduction-to-wcag2ict-application-note
>       that we aren't consistent in "set of *NON-WEB *documents" (vs.
>       just "set of documents").  I'm not sure exactly how to best
>       clean that up.  Should we use "set of non-web documents" in the
>       intro paragraph of Key Terms, as well as in the H3 tag "Set of
>       non-web documents"?  Should we put "non-web" in parenthesis
>       here, as i: "Set of (non-web) documents" in both the first
>       paragraph & also the H3 tag?
I think there were inconsistencies in the source, and I tried to
harmonize with existing usages of similar terms but perhaps introduced
further inconsistencies.

First, it makes sense to me to make the term being linked be "set of
documents". It's shorter, clear enough, and the entire context is
non-web, so I don't think we have to rub that in with every usage of the

WCAG addresses that by putting a parenthetical clarification in the term
definition, but not using it in term references (see the WCAG definition
for content, which WCAG2ICT followed the pattern of). I hadn't followed
quite that pattern before but have now, so the term is now "set of
documents (non-web)". That would be the only place we'd see the

Note the parenthetical runs up against a following parenthetical "(as
used in WCAG2ICT)". I wonder if we in fact need that, here or on any of
the other terms. It would simplify reading to remove those
parentheticals from the term headers in the key terms section. But I
didn't do it yet - let me know if it's ok with the TF.

You all may have a different solution to the disharmony Peter noticed.
If so, let me know. My solution is just a proposal.
>    *
>     * Also, speaking of that first paragraph of Key Terms, I wonder
>       whether we should say anything IN THAT PARAGRAPH about the fact
>       that do not have a "set of software" equivalent; or whether we
>       should simply leave the reader to discover that later.
I'll take text if you
>    *
>       Alternately, perhaps this might go below the "One example of a
>       set of documents" text in the "set of documents" key term. 
>       E.g.: "Note: the WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet developed an
>       equivalent alternative to "set of web pages" in software.
I'll take text if the TF can give me a version it agrees on.
>    *
>     * Editorial: Note 2 of "set of documents": should the final word
>       "documents" be plural or singular?  Perhaps it should be
>       "...evaluated as any other individual document is evaluated"?
Fixed as proposed.
>    *
>     * Shouldn't ALL of the "Additional guidance" blocks be:
>       "Additional guidance when applying {Guideline | Success
>       Criterion} [x.y{.z}] to Electronic *Non-Web* Documents and
>       Software Aspects of Products:" ??  I thought that was part of
>       the global search & replace.
Yeah, I guess it should have been. This text comes out of my XSLT file,
not the actual  and I didn't apply the search / replace there. I've
fixed that now.
>    *
>     * The problem I found last night (along with the proposed fix for
>       it) about 1.4.2 & our failure to do the "web page" substitution
>       isn't captured in these drafts.  Can you please add that in?  It
>       should be part of the survey for Thursday, and I seriously doubt
>       it won't get approved.
I was only looking at Andi's message, hadn't seen this on the list (ref:
http://www.w3.org/mid/50C7FAAA.5060501@oracle.com). I've made this
change. Note I changed the order of the substitutions list to be in the
order they are replaced in the WCAG version.
>    *
>     * Noticed a bad link by accidentally clicking on Understanding
>       Success Criterion 1.4.3 in Understanding WCAG 2.0
>       <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20121214/visual-audio-contrast-contrast#visual-audio-contrast-contrast-intent-head>:
>       under SC1.4.3:
>       http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20121214/visual-audio-contrast-contrast#visual-audio-contrast-contrast-intent-head  
>       Are these links supposed to work?  /Understanding Success
>       Criterion 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced)
>       <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20121214/visual-audio-contrast7.html>/
>       is also bad (same SC)
These should be fixed now. I was staging for Friday, than changed the
staging for Thursday but didn't update the links until the link checker
caught me this morning.
>    *
>     * I think the Editor's Note for SC 3.2.4 should also mention
>       another key part of the back-up plan: that we would also have to
>       say that the WCAG2ICT TF does not yet have guidance for how to
>       apply this SC to software.  WCAG WG should have that info before
>       them as part of their review this Thursday.
I think that's within the spirit of the backup plan, so I made the
change. I also changed the editorial note to show the new version rather
than just describe it, so if we go to the backup I just have to swap
that in.

>    *
> Other than those few things, this looks very good!  Thank you again
> for all of your hard work.
> Peter
> On 12/12/2012 7:25 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
>> There are two review versions of WCAG2ICT available for this week on
>> the W3C site. The first is the version you've been looking at all
>> along, and is the version that is being sent to the WCAG Working
>> Group for review this Thursday. This is available at:
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/
>> The second version incorporates the proposals that have been sent to
>> the WCAG WG for review this week, and is therefore close to the final
>> version we hope to publish if the WCAG WG approves the changes
>> proposed this week. "Backup plan" edits are shown as editorial notes.
>> This version is available at:
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121213/
>> I would appreciate editorial review of the implementation of the
>> anticipated changes that are also under WCAG review. I need editorial
>> feedback as soon as possible, preferred today - I will not have time
>> to do major edits after the WCAG call closes, and won't have much
>> time during the day before the call either. A diff version that may
>> help your review is available at (long URL warning):
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2F2012%2FWD-wcag2ict-20121126%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2F2012%2FWD-wcag2ict-20121213%2F
>> Michael
>> -- 
>> Michael Cooper
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
>> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
>> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
> -- 
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 20:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:48 UTC