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

Fwd: EOWG discussion questions for WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:30:55 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030814101320.027d48d8@localhost>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

EOWG:

A condensed list of EOWG discussion questions for the WCAG 2.0 Working 
Draft follows, based on our conversation at last week's teleconference.

Again, the 24 June 2003 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft is available at
         http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/
and the call for review which was sent out on the WAI Interest Group 
mailing list is available at
         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003JulSep/0196.html

Please carefully read the whole draft document before our teleconference 
tomorrow. Comments onto the EOWG list are encouraged.

Regards,

- Judy

1. Are the guidelines and checkpoints understandable?
(WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE ALREADY.)

2. Is the terminology used translatable?
(WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE SOME, AND SHOULD JUST CHECK BACK IN BRIEFLY ON IT.)

3. What would the impact of the guidelines, checkpoints, and conformance 
model be on:
- EOWG's evaluation resource suite?
- other EOWG documents?

4. Is the structure of the document easy to understand and follow:
- is it easy to find specific topics within the document?
- is it easy to find associated documents such as the Techniques documents?
- how clear and appropriate is the overall presentation of the document?

5. Does the conformance model appear to be:
- clearly defined and implementable?
- clearly explained with respect to questions people may have regarding the 
transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0?



>Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:12:36 -0400
>To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: EOWG discussion questions for WCAG 2.0 Working Draft
>
>EOWG:
>
>At our teleconference last week, we agreed that we would discuss the 24 
>June 2003 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft at our EOWG teleconferences on 8 August, 
>15 August, and also 29 August if needed.
>
>Several people said that they would start reading the draft to help start 
>the discussion for this week, and I promised to send out the questions 
>that we'd brainstormed on our 1 August teleconference. While I'm not 
>getting those out as early as I'd hoped, they are listed below, for your 
>reading pleasure. Comments on these questions to the EOWG mailing list are 
>also welcome.
>
>The 24 June 2003 WCAG 2.0 Working Draft is available at
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/
>and the call for review which was sent out on the WAI Interest Group 
>mailing list is available at
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2003JulSep/0196.html
>
>Suggested questions for EOWG discussion follow:
>
>1. Are the guidelines and checkpoints understandable?
>
>2. Is the terminology used translatable?
>
>3. Is the conformance model clearly defined and implementable?
>
>4. What would the impact of the guidelines and checkpoints be on EOWG's 
>Evaluation Resource Suite?
>
>5. What would the impact of this draft of WCAG 2.0 be on other EOWG documents?
>
>6. Is the structure of the document easy to understand and follow?
>
>7. Is it easy to find specific topics within the document?
>
>8. Is it easy to find associated documents such as the Techniques documents?
>
>9. How clearly does this draft explain questions regarding the transition 
>between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0?
>
>10. How clear and appropriate is the overall presentation of the document?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>- Judy
>
>--
>Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 10:32:39 GMT

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