Regrets and comments

Dear all,

Here are some bits from me (will not be joining the telco this week):

On How WCAG 1.0 differs from WCAG 2.0
=====================================

If this is going to be an independent document and not one of the nested
pages it is good to start with a quck history of WCAG. I assume that
from the title it should be already clear that those who would read this
doc are familiar with WCAG else they will not read this page. So need
something like: WCAG 1.0 wered eveloped in 19** and will be superceeded
by WCAG 2.0. This page describes the differences between these two
versions of the guidelines. For more info in WCAG 1.0 see ... For more
info on WCAG 2.0 see ...

I don't see "Transitions from 1.0 to 2.0" as part of "how 2.0 differs
from 1.0" Transition is not a difference, it is a process and should be
a separate page. It should not have a dedicated heading. Perhaps only a
link at the bottom saying "The following documents will guide you thru
transitioning from .. To .."

I generally don't think we need so many headings. There is a need for
some grouping like:
- aligning with technology advancement
- from guidelines to principles
- from checpoints to success criteria
- from priority level to A level
- what is brand new in WCAG 2.0
- what is obsolete in WCAG 1.0

"changes in requirements" as it is now is also supporting material like
transitions so it should not be a chapter on its own.

For the WCAG pages new and updated
==================================
Is the page a collection of material that is going to be organized in
some form? Is this already a page layout? Are we supposed to review all
the links? I have some (a lot of) input and I have spotted some glitches
but by placing a single link to the meeting agenda it is not at all
clear what is supposed to be reviewed and discussed.

Anna

Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 13:50:16 UTC