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

Re: Two review versions of WCAG2ICT

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:00:07 -0600
To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-id: <77A36CC5-178A-4376-82AC-700A48659C36@trace.wisc.edu>
GV:   OOPs sent before done.
here is the rest 

On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com> 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?
> 

GV: I see Michal solved that with  (non-web) 

> 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.
GV: I wouldn't add anything here.     
> 
> 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.
> 
GV:  I would not start adding text unless purely editorial or essential 
> 
> 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"?

> 
> 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.
GV: yes - this should be consistent and as Peter noted 

> 
> 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.
GV:  Already on the survey for WCAG.  So please add to your second version (with new edits sent to WCAG)
> 
> Noticed a bad link by accidentally clicking on Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3 in Understanding WCAG 2.0 : 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) is also bad (same SC)
> 
> 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.
GV:  Yep - good catch. 
> 
> Other than those few things, this looks very good!  Thank you again for all of your hard work.
> 

GV:  DITTO !
> 
> 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
>> Information Page
>> 
> 
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 5069522 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 22:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 December 2012 22:00:52 GMT