AUWG Review of WCAG 2.0

For the Review of WCAG, here my issues.

Note: I have already sent a very similar list to the User Agent group 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007AprJun/0056.html)


1. The term "Robust" seems not quite right, though I can't think of a
single word that is.

2. For the "three levels of conformance" the rationales seem
insufficient. The key concept seems to be "impact on presentation" where
presentation is most likely visual presentation. In some cases however,
the difference actually seems to be more about technical complexity or
changes to the site a as it might otherwise have been designed. For
example:
   - Captions (Prerecorded) are level A, while Captions (Live) are level
AA, but the impact on presentation is the same.
   - Abbreviations (not impact on presentation, but definitely more work)
   - Reading Level (does not really impact the "presentation" as this
word is usually used)

3. Maybe should add to 2.1 something about finding out about keyboard
settings for a Web Page.

4. 2.2.2 Blinking should go somewhere else (2.3 or 1.4)

5. Maybe "2.4.4 Link Purpose (Context)" should just apply if back button
won't work.

6. Error Prevention - 3.3.3 - maybe Checking and confirming should both
be mandatory

7. Def: Mechanism: "The mechanism may be explicitly provided in the
content, or may be relied on to be provided by either the platform or by
user agents, including assistive technologies."
   - how many user agents, ATs, etc need to provide it before this is ok?
1.4.2 (Audio Turnoff) allows a "mechanism" but 1.4.4 (Resize text)
doesn't. Is this consistent enough?

8. Def: Technology:
- This is no longer linked to in the main document.
- Why is "API" in the definition? I think it interferes.


Cheers,
Jan

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 12:52:52 UTC