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

Re: EOWG: WCAG 2.0 Review and Agenda for 19 May 2006 Teleconference

From: Barry McMullin <mcmullin@eeng.dcu.ie>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 13:11:41 +0100 (IST)
cc: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605191245080.24379@pompeii.eeng.dcu.ie>



On Thu, 18 May 2006, Judy Brewer wrote:

> 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?

I agree with Alan's comment about the overall navigation, and
overloading of the phrase "table of contents".  Maybe "Quick
Table of Contents" should be "Contents of this page", or "Contents
of this section" ... just anything to clearly distinguish it from
the overall "Table of Contents".

We probably need more hyperlinked glossary words; in this
sentence:

  WCAG 2.0 covers a wide range of recommendations for making Web
  content more accessible. The guidelines do not include standard
  usability recommendations except where they have specific
  impact on accessibility.

I think it would help for both "usability" and "accessibility" to
link with glossary entries (where, presumably, the relationship
between the two could be explained).

The list following:

  The WCAG 2.0 document itself consists of:

should presumably have exactly one hyperlink in every item?

  Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is normative. That is, only this
  document can be used for determining conformance to these
  guidelines.

I'm not sure what this means; or that it is even accurate.
The techniques document states:

  Some are sufficient to meet a particular success criterion ...

from which it follows that, in at least some cases, the
techniques *can* be "used to determine conformance".  (Presumably
what the WCAG 2.0 text is trying to explain is the strict
legalistic point that *in cases of conflict* between WCAG 2.0 and
anything else, WCAG 2.0 takes priority; but that is quite
different from asserting that "only" WCAG 2.0 can be "used to
determine conformance", which I think is, at best,
confusing. Clearly, there will be any number of things, other
than WCAG 2.0 itself, that will be "usable", in the practical,
pragmatic sense, to "determine conformance"...

  The Working Group recognizes that readers who are new to
  accessibility may need or want additional information. For
  these readers, the work of the Web Accessibility Initiative and
  its Education and Outreach Working Group is highly
  recommended. The articles called Getting Started: Making a Web
  Site Accessible and How People with Disabilities Use the Web
  are especially useful.

It might be better for this to appear earlier; that is, for
readers who may land on this page via a fairly generic web
search, we need an early statement that this page is part of a
"technical specification" and is not suitable as an introduction
to the general topic of web accessibility; and then point at the
other introductory resources as above.

The heading:

  The Four Principles of Accessibility

might, I think be better re-phrased slightly:

  The Four Principles of Content Accessibility

or:

  The Four Principles of Accessible Content

but without the word "content" in there we lose track of the
critical point that "accessibility" is a complex interaction of
multiple components, of which content is only one.

All for now, talk to you all shortly,

Best - Barry.
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 12:23:10 GMT

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