W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: [DRAFT for Rapid Review] EOWG Comments on WCAG 2.0 "About Baseline" info page

From: Wayne Dick ' <Wed@csulb.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 21:45:25 -0700
Message-ID: <000501c6725a$3a3b8480$6501a8c0@SELFAW7WO6BSPE>
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
1. The third and forth paragraph of the "Background" section should be merged after truncating the part of paragraph three following "that are technology independent"  It would look like this.

"To address these needs, the working group has developed a set of guidelines and success criteria that are technology independent, the  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.  A key element in this model is the ability to define the set of technologies that user agents can be assumed to support. It is not valid to assume that user agents, including assistive technologies, will support all new technologies on the day they are announced. Some mechanism defining the technologies that can be assumed to be enabled and working in user agents (including assistive technologies) is needed. The group, however, found that choosing any set of technologies and defining it in WCAG 2.0 (overtly or through the definition of the success criteria) would quickly date the new guidelines, as the WCAG 1.0 had become dated. It would limit the ability of Web content that is accessible in the future, using future technologies, to claim conformance using those new technologies."



The reference to the Understanding document diverts attention from the difficult baseline concept.  Such references can be tacked onto the end.





2. Remove the reference to UAAG 1.0 in the last paragraph.  The solution was baseline.  The reader doesn't need to know WCAG's false starts.  It will confuse.  We can clarify the difference between UAAG and baseline after the understand what a baseline is.  Actually once one understands the baseline concept, they might not think of UAAG as a candidate solution.



3.  The actual definition of a baseline is excellent and clear.  The examples make sense.  I believe that removing the WCAG WG process comments from the document really make it understandable.  Once solved, the baseline problem is easy to see and understand, and it seems unnatural to try a different approach.



Wayne
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 04:45:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:42 GMT