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

Updated EOWG comments on ATAG 2.0 Working Draft

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:35:10 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20070118170746.03ce2858@localhost>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

EOWG,

Following are draft comments compiled from our past two weeks of EOWG 
discussion of the 7 December 2006 ATAG 2.0 Working Draft. At the end of our 
last meeting, there was a request to see these again before sending them to 
AUWG. So please look over the comments below and let us know if you have 
any substantial problems with any of these.

At tomorrow's teleconference we will discuss comments on the guidelines 
themselves, including comments from Justin
         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006OctDec/0112.html
         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006OctDec/0113.html
and Liam
         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0013.html
and also the comment from Shawn on distribution of introductory material 
between this and other documents
         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007JanMar/0016.html

Comments that don't get integrated into EOWG's comments can be submitted 
separately next week.

Thank you,

- Judy

Compiled comments from EOWG discussions so far:

1. 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

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

3. Briefly mention in the Abstract that ATAG 2.0 applies to both WCAG 1.0 
and WCAG 2.0.

4. 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.

5. Provide one or more example conformance statements. Put these in a 
separate document and point to it from the ATAG 2.0 specification. Also 
note that the fourth point asks for a description of how the normative 
success criteria were met for each of the checkpoints that were required. 
That seems a lot to ask for. Perhaps the example would help clarify that 
this requirement is for brief comments as opposed to detailed descriptions.

6. 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.

7. The content in 1.2 does not entirely match the heading ("Role of 
authoring tools in Web accessibility"). 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.

8. [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 linked. 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. In other places, 
links may be unnecessary, e.g. the links in '(e.g., an HTML editor with 
both code-level and WYSIWYG editing views)' go to the bullets right 
underneath; instead of links, put 'described below'.

9. 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 options for filtering 
would take care of sorting out the relevant priorities (since "relative 
priority" is a complicated concept to understand).

10. Add a link at the top of the document to the [Contents] (as is done in 
many other W3C specifications).

11. ATAG should apply to modular components (such as widgets) of the auth 
tools as well as to the auth tools themselves.

12. Consider mentioning the following as one among several overarching 
principles (or a quick tip?) for the document: "If the auth tool is 
Web-based, then the user interface should be WCAG-compliant, and the 
content that is produced should be WCAG-compliant."

13. Since relative priority is such a key concept for ATAG conformance, 
introduce it in the Introduction.

14. The concept of content-type specific WCAG benchmarks is not 
sufficiently clear from the description, nor how to implement it; and the 
developer is pointed to too many resources for detail on how to implement 
this. (For instance, EOWG readers had the following questions: Is content 
type-specific WCAG benchmark" different from a Techniques document? Does 
"content type-specific WCAG benchmark" need to be normative? Should the 
authoring tool developer write the "content type-specific WCAG benchmark," 
or the vendor?)



-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 19 January 2007 04:35:29 GMT

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