RE: Comments on Introduction to WCAG 2.0

I could write a long description of my concerns, but Alan has already done a
great job of it.  So my comment is: "what he said"!
 
Well done, Alan.
 
Regards,
-Mark D. Urban 
919-395-8513 (cell)
Chair, North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Persons with
Disabilities
Keep up with the latest in worldwide accessibility at
(http://www.icdri.org/) 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Alan Chuter
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:41 AM
To: EOWG
Subject: Comments on Introduction to WCAG 2.0
 
 
I was confused starting to read this document, as it doesn't explain that  
it's part of a set of pages. Not seeing the title, I read "Quick Table of  
Contents [hr] [list of internal links] [hr] Introduction | This section is  
informative." It needs to do something to quickly orient the reader, to  
say that this is the beginning of a large document that has been broken up  
into separate Web pages. When I click on the "Table of Contents" link at  
the top I jump to another page in which the Introduction is included in  
the ToC as part of a larger whole but isn't actually in the page. This is  
a four-dimensional maze.
 
Being the introduction, I assume that this will be the point of entry for  
many many readers. The list that begins with "The WCAG 2.0 document itself  
consists of:" I think may be confusing. There are many terms like  
"Conformance", "success criteria", "how to meet links",  "intent",  
"sufficient techniques", "baseline assumptions." Perhaps this could be  
expressed in non-expert termingology.
 
I found the phrase "'How to meet' links" especially baffling.
 
Here is a suggestion:
 
* Guidelines and information about how to implement them
* Information about how to determine conformance with the guidelines
* Links to information on techniques and examples
* Glossary, checklist, and references
 
The item that says there's a link to information about the WG's approach  
to baselines is inconsistent witgh the list of contents. I mean that to  
say that this large document contains all these sections and "a link to"  
something else isn't right. A single link doesn't go in a table of  
contents on the same level as a section. This is actually given its own  
paragraph in this document later on.
 
The section "Related documents" could be more usefule if it explained that  
WCAG is only part of the whole picture. Many people start thinking that  
WCAG is the whole thing, and only discover the other documents later on.  
this section could focus on putting the guidelines in context. It says "  
Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is normative" but the Introduction is not  
normative, which, as many people may regard it as a separate document, is  
confusing.
 
regards to all,
 
-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant,
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios),
Madrid, Spain.
achuter@technosite.es