W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2007

Draft EOWG Comments on ATAG 2.0 WD

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:31:22 -0600
Message-ID: <45A4F8BA.8020000@w3.org>
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

EOWG,

At last week's EOWG teleconference we discussed high-level issues with the latest ATAG 2.0 Working Draft. A *draft* write up of these EOWG comments is below. At this week's teleconference we will discuss any changes to these, if needed, and we will discuss additional comments sent to the EOWG list. If you have comments that don't get integrated into EOWG's comments, you can submit them separately next week.

* Consider moving the conformance section after the guidelines themselves. Keep it part of the main document (as opposed to appendix); e.g., see http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/cover.html#toc

* The dependency between ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 needs to be clarified in the Abstract and Introduction.

* Consider if "Content Type-Specific WCAG Benchmark" belongs within the ATAG 2.0 spec. It seems better to put it in a separate document and point to it from the ATAG 2.0 spec.

* Provide one or more example conformance statements. Put these in a separate document and point to it from the ATAG 2.0 spec.

* The content in 1.2 does not entirely match the heading. Re-examine the content for suitability in this document, possibly moving some material out and pointing to it in another document(s); or break up the content into different sections; or broaden the heading.

* Introduce concepts and terms before they are used. For example, several things in the "Relative Priority Checkpoints" section are required to understand the point, but have not yet been introduced or explained: Part A & Part B, conformance profile, content type-specific WCAG benchmark.

* [editorial] In several places, the links cause some reading difficulties (since they are emphasized by color and underline), especially when only part of compound nouns are links. For example, in the introduction, in the second sentence, "...assisting authoring tool developers to...", the word "developers" gets lost and instead it should be the focus.

* Consider providing a resource like the WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference where users can get a version of the ATAG 2.0 guidelines and techniques that apply specifically to their project by filtering based on options such as WCAG version, WCAG priorities, and type of tool. For example, users would choose the relative priority up front and then the filtered information would take care of that (since "relative priority" is a complicated concept to understand).

---

Best,
~Shawn
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 14:31:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:43 GMT