W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2003

WCAG 2.0- some comments

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:52:02 -0400
Message-ID: <00e401c35c6d$5a4fdd80$9601a8c0@deque.local>
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
For your consideration:
1. Under heading "Conformance Claims", what is difference between #1 and #2? " the term "for a Web resource" is present only  in  #1. Conformance claims 2-4 too are made in respect of Web resources. 
Refer:
"1. In order to make a valid conformance claim for a Web resource, the resource must satisfy all required success criteria  for all Core checkpoints.
2. A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Core" can be made if all required success criteria for all core checkpoints have been  met."

2. Conformance Claim: Do away with "Core+" claim. It can become very subjective and misleading because as is already  recognized,  a Core+2 site might be better than a Core+3 page in some situations. A site that meets just 10% of extended and  one that meets 80% of extended checkpoints will have the same ranking unless a "Core+N" method is not adopted. Some pages on 
a site might meet 20% of extended items and some might conform with more. So what will N be? 

3.  Use of term "accessibility technologies" in defining robust: is it intentional or should it be assistive technologies? See heading "Overview of Design Principles"

4. "Under Designing Accessible Web Content"
there is a link to E-O WG. This should be replaced with  a link to an index of completed resources put out by the E-O WG. 

5. What is the purpose of Best Practices?
 The explanation, required success criteria and examples following every checkpoint are enough. I think it becomes confusing to also present best practices 
when there is little or no difference between required success factors and best practices. For instance see checkpoint 1.1
and 4.1
6. Consider replacing all headings "Benefits" with "Who is benefitted?". The style in which the items are listed are more  appropriate for this interrogatory. Also all items under benefits appear to be user groups. 
7. Rationale of what constitutes core and extended   like WCAG 1.0 has a structure of P1, P2, P3.
Need to explain why   some  are core and some are extended, like 
Core checkpoints : if not complied with, one or more user groups may find  it impossible to access content
Extended: these enhance (usability)   or facilitate navigation and  provide more efficient  access to content

8. Consider inserting a section on  development  process: Choice of technology and impact on accessibility.  This section 
should talk about   "widely available",  time lag  before assistive tech adopts the technology,availability of AT in natural 
language of site,  backword compatibility, etc.  This section may be placed before the guidelines and checkpoints are listed.

Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc
11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
Fax: 703-225-0387
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:47:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:36 GMT