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

Fwd: messages on EO Mailing list

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:12:58 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030912091145.053ebd10@localhost>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Forwarding, from Sylvie, with her permission.

- Judy

>Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:58:17 +0200
>To: jbrewer@w3.org
>From: Sylvie Duchateau <sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr>
>Subject: messages on EO Mailing list
>Cc: Pierre GUILLOU <pierre.guillou@snv.jussieu.fr>
<...>
>Hello all,
>
>I am coming back to the EO list after several months. I read the draft of 
>the WCAG 2.0 very carefully as well as the discussions on the list. Today 
>is the deadline to send comments to the WCAG Working group and I do not 
>know if the EO groups intends to send all their comments or if each of us 
>should send something to the WCAG working group. For that reason, I send 
>some general comments/questions  first to this list.
>
>This is a series of general questions I raised together with my colleagues 
>at BrailleNet.
>
>First, I must say that this new approach is a bit confusing for someone 
>who has been reviewing Web sites for months using the WCAG 1.0.
>
>1. The number of guidelines has been reduced from 14 to 4, as well as the 
>number of checkpoints. We wonder why there are now only four guidelines 
>(no less and no more), why these four guidelines were chosen.
>
>2. For the 3 first guidelines the same words are used for the  title and 
>the  definition. For example: "PERCEIVABLE. Make Content Perceivable by 
>Any User". This does not explain what "perceivable" means. We suggest to 
>use other words to define the guidelines and make it more explicit.
>
>3. We wonder how the integration of specific checkpoints in a specific 
>guideline was decided. We had the impression that there was sometimes no 
>relationship between checkpoints gathered in one guideline.
>
>4. We think that some terms need to be explained (like the priority levels 
>were explained in WCAG 1.0): “Best practices”, “Success criteria” and how 
>they are related ?
>
>5. Writing the "best practices" just after the success criteria may be 
>confusing: we suggest that the "best practice" information is part of 
>another document, (like the techniques) in order to avoid misunderstanding.
>
>6. Why are some checkpoints defined as "core" and other as "extended" What 
>is the meaning of "core" and "extended"?
>
>7. Some words may be difficult to translate in other languages. See for 
>example : robust, core, extended, core+, …)
>
>8. If all "core" checkpoints are met, and only some "extended" 
>checkpoints, how can the accessibility of a Web site be measured. Are some 
>"extended" checkpoints more important than others?
>
>Regards
>Sylvie

-- 
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 Friday, 12 September 2003 09:13:18 GMT

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