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

Re: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:44:21 -0700
Message-ID: <500EDEF5.2060302@oracle.com>
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
CC: WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Hi Michael,

In the Introduction 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/#intro>, under 
"Understanding Key Terms", there are several "@@" sections.  Will this 
remain as such in what we publish?  Also the final paragraph of that 
section is an Editor note.  Shouldn't that be set apart visually somehow?

The heading of the "Additional guidance" text is styled differently for 
Guidelines vs. SCs.  For SCs the text is in all-caps, with the "A" of 
Additional, the "S" of Success and the "C" of Criterion (along with the 
SC number and "ICT") in boldface; whereas for Guidelines everything is 
in boldface with only initial capitalization.  They should be styled the 
same, and I think the Guidelines styling is preferable.

For each of the Intent sections, are these pulling from the very latest 
Understanding WCAG 2.0 document, which includes the very recent changes 
that have come from WCAG2ICT work?  My spot check of SC 1.3.1 looks like 
this was the case.

Link errors:

  * http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/ is bad (2nd link in document)
  * http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/ is bad (3rd link in document)
  * http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/@@URI%20to%20IPP%20status%20or%20other%20page@@
    is bad (3rd link prior to the Table of Contents)
  * TOC entry for Comments by Guideline and Success Criterion
    <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/#wcag2ict_comments_principles-guidelines-sc>
    doesn't go anywhere
  * Guideline 1.1 link to Guideline 1.1 in Understanding WCAG 2.0
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20120726//text-equiv#text-equiv-intent-head>:
    is bad [/*as is the case for all Guideline links in all Guidelines
    it seems - didn't test these exhaustively*/]
  * SC1.1.1 link to Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1 in
    Understanding WCAG 2.0
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20120726//text-equiv-all#text-equiv-all-intent-head>:
    is bad [/*as is the case for all Understanding SC links in all SCs
    it seems - didn't test these exhaustively*/]

Other errors found:

  * SC 4.1.1 text was not approved by WCAG (even thought the TF reached
    consensus there), so that should read: "/The WCAG2ICT Task Force has
    not yet produced additional guidance for Success Criterion 4.1.1./"
    /*We need to verify this for all the SCs that the TF approved but
    for which WCAG did NOT approve.  I'm working on that review now...*/


Peter


On 7/24/2012 8:52 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:
> An editors' draft of WCAG2ICT is available in W3C space:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/
>
> I have been working with the editorial team to refine the structure 
> and presentation of this document. I expect to continue with some 
> minor style enhancements but otherwise this document is substantially 
> in the form I expect to publish Thursday.
>
> A number of people agreed to review this draft, which I appreciate. I 
> will need reviews within the next 24 hours, and I hope you don't find 
> anything major, just tweaks. :) Some questions to help steer your 
> review, in descending order of priority:
>
>  1. Does the WCAG2ICT content (under the headings "Additional Guidance
>     when applying..." match the version that had consensus of the
>     WCAG2ICT Task Force and the WCAG Working Group?
>  2. Is there any WCAG2ICT consensus content that is missing?
>  3. Do the quotes from Understanding WCAG 2.0 include the
>     modifications raised by the task force and agreed to by the WCAG WG?
>  4. Do the quotes from Understanding and WCAG otherwise look ok?
>       * The biggest issue I could expect is that content that was
>         deleted is still showing up, though I've tried to check for that.
>       * It is also possible that formatting from the original
>         documents did not correctly carry through into this document.
>  5. Is the overall structure and semantics of this document easy to
>     understand and follow (considering the content)? Feedback from
>     screen reader users would be particularly helpful.
>  6. Do you have any input on the visual style? I can't apply all style
>     suggestions because there are style rules for W3C formal
>     publications, but within the framework have attempted to make the
>     document easy to read or skim visually.
>
> 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: +1 650 506 9522 <tel:+1%20650%20506%209522>
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure 
to use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 17:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 July 2012 17:45:04 GMT