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

Re: Introduction to WCAG 2.0 penultimate paragraph (was EOWG: WCAG 2.0 Review...)

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 08:58:31 +0200
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s9sdnthozqgw0t@0032k2d.e-fti.com>

I wonder really whether this level of detail is appropriate at all in an  
introduction. The glossary, which is where one would expect to find a  
detailed explanation is only a fraction of the length. Likewise the  
preceding paragraph on Web units. The final paragraph on baselines seems  
better, providing an introduction and a link to what's in the About  
Baseelines.

best regards,

-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant,
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios),
Madrid, Spain.
achuter@technosite.es



On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:14 +0200, Pasquale Popolizio  
<pasquale@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Judy, hi all,
> some my thoughts:
>
> 1. Introduction to WCAG 2.0
> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html
>
> penultimate paragraph:
>
> "Several success criteria require that content (or certain aspects of  
> content) can be "programmatically determined." This means that the  
> author is responsible for ensuring that the content is delivered in such  
> a way that software can access it. This is important in order to allow  
> assistive technologies to recognize it and present it to the user, even  
> if the user requires a different sensory modality than the original. For  
> example, some assistive technologies convert text into speech or  
> braille. This will also allow content in the future to be translated  
> into simpler forms for people with cognitive disabilities, or to allow  
> access by other agent based technologies. This can happen only if the  
> content itself can be programmatically determined."
>
> I find this paragraph is a bit difficult to understand.
>
>
> 2. Comparison between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0
> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html
>
> In this list there is a Priority checkpoint order, while in the WCAG 2.0  
> - Appendix B: Checklist
> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixB.html
>
> the order is by Guideline.
>
> So I think that maybe the user/reader can be disoriented.
>
>
> regsrds
> ciao
>
> ~ pasquale
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno 18/mag/06, alle ore 06:32, Judy Brewer ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Dear EOWG Participants:
>>
>> An agenda and calling logistics for our 19 May 2006 teleconference  
>> follow, as well as links for document sections to review.
>>
>> Time:     8:30am - 10:30am U.S. Eastern Time. For other time zones see:
>>           http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
>> Bridge:  +1.617.761.6200, code: EOWG# (3694#)
>> IRC:     Channel: #eo, server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665
>>
>> Scribe:  Listed at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> We're continuing our review of the WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft  
>> this week, and focusing on the remaining sections. Please post comments  
>> to the list in advance if possible -- thanks.
>>
>> 1. Introduction to WCAG 2.0 [very brief check]
>> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html
>> Focusing on:
>> - Does the introduction give a clear picture of what is in WCAG 2.0?
>> - Are there any parts that might be confusing for readers?
>>
>> 2. Comparison between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 [very brief check]
>> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html
>> Focusing on:
>> - Helpful? Clear?
>> - Does it need any more context up front?
>>
>> 3. Glossary [brief check]
>> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html
>> Focusing on:
>> - Are the glossary entries clearer now, and helpful for understanding  
>> the text?
>> - Are any of the definitions unclear, or significantly conflicting with  
>> other versions of WAI definitions for those terms?
>>
>> 4. Guidelines [not so brief]
>> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html
>> Focusing on:
>> - At the guideline level -- any substantial remaining understandability  
>> problems?
>> - At the success criteria level -- ditto?
>> Note:
>> - We probably will not have sufficient time to go through all of these,
>>    but will select a few to highlight & discuss if needed;
>>    people can follow up w/ posting more individual comments as needed.
>>
>> 5. Comment wrap-up
>> - reviewing and approving comments drafted to date
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> ~ Judy & Shawn
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 07:02:30 GMT

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