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

RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT -- email listed for commenting is incorrect

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:07:04 +0000
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, WCAG2ICT <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C18AC41C570F214AAD320947DF8D16CE7F6C7F69@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Great job Michael!  I have no substantive comments, but I think I caught a couple typos.

Email listed for public comments (Status of this Document, just before Table of Contents) is  public-comments-wcag20@w3.org<mailto:public-comments-wcag20@w3.org> but I think we would want to use public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-comments@w3.org> instead.

Under 1.4.2, “Additional guidance when applying Success Criterion 1.4.2 to Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products”, you have a space inside the leading quotation mark:

… and " any content" with " any part of an electronic document or software user interface".

Should be:

… and "any content" with "any part of an electronic document or software user interface".

From: Michael Cooper [mailto:cooper@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

An editors' draft of WCAG2ICT is available in W3C space:


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 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 Thursday, 26 July 2012 13:07:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:44 UTC