W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2008

Thoughts on WCAG 2.0 LC

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:05:49 -0500
Message-ID: <478F8AED.1050803@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Hi all,

After reviewing the WCAG 2.0 Last Call, I'm glad to say I don't have any 
major concerns. It would have been nice to have a bit more text about 
the role of authoring tools and ATAG, but what's in is ok.

My thoughts:

1.1.1 - Media, Test, Sensory - Suggest breaking this complicated bullet
into it's 5 parts

1.4.1 - Not sure Note 1 is necessary...other forms of perception are
covered in several places including later in 1.4: "Note 1: This Success
Criterion addresses color perception specifically. Other forms of
perception are covered in Guideline 1.3."

2.3.1 - Ed: "Web pages do" link

2.2.5 - Exception needed for unsubmitted data? as in ATAG A.3.2.1

3.3.4 - Maybe make more general by including examples as e.g.s - as it
stands sending emails unlikely to be included

Conformance: I think listing the user agent tested on should be required 
for increased transparency.



And here are some things I think ATAG 2.0 could pick up and use:

- 1.3.1 "or are available in text"

- Notes in in 1.4

- Several things new in 1.4 including 1.4.8 Visual Presentation

- 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap

- In the understanding document, the 3 headings:
Sufficient, Advisory, Failures

-http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20071211/conformance.html



-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 17:05:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:07 GMT