Re: Last Call for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

Review of:
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
    1999-02-26
    http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH-19990226

As there are currently lots of W3C documents requiring review by the I18N IG 
and we have three of our own WDs under development, I have reviewed this 
document myself.  I am copying the I18N IG, in case any members wish to 
supplement, or take issue with, my comments.  A lot of thought has clearly 
been put into this document, so most of my comments are stylistic.  

1.   Abstract

     Suggestion:
     "automobile-based PC's" -> 
     "automobile-based PCs"

2.   Guideline 2

     Suggestion:
     "to understanding what's going on" -> 
     "to enable the user to understand what's going on"

3.   Checkpoint 5.6

     Suggestion:
     "use 'em' or percentages lengths" -> 
     "use 'em' or percentage lengths"

4.   Guideline 6

     I'm baffled by the title:
     "Supplement markup to aid interpretation of text"

     In what sense do any of the recommendations under this guideline 
     supplement markup?

5.   Guideline 6 checkpoints

     Suggestion:
     In addition to HTML's "lang" attribute, mention XML's "xml:lang" 
     attribute.

6.   Checkpoint 9.1

     Suggestion:
     "in HTTP, auto-refreshing is done with "HTTP-EQUIV=refresh"." -> 
     "in HTML, auto-refreshing is done with "HTTP-EQUIV=refresh"."
     
     The current text is incorrect.

7.   Checkpoint 11.1

     This is surely incorrect:
     "See also guideline 11."

8.   Guideline 12

     Suggestion:
     "These activate elements are therefore difficult ... to access." -> 
     "These active elements are therefore difficult ... to access."

9.   Note to Guideline 13

     Suggestion:
     "the translation process" -> 
     "the conversion process"

     Suggestion:
     "If a page does not readily translate" -> 
     "If a page does not readily convert"

     The word "translation" is best reserved for use with human language 
     variants of a document.

10.  Checkpoint 13.5

     Suggestion:
     "can not" -> 
     "cannot"

11.  Checkpoint 15.9

     Context:
     "Facilitate off-line browsing by creating a single downloadable file 
     for documents that exist as a series of separate pages. [Priority 3]
     For example, in HTML use the LINK element. Or create an archive of the 
     different pages (e.g., with zip, gzip, stuffit, etc.)."

     I'm baffled by the sentence "For example, in HTML use the LINK element."
     It would appear that two distinct issues have got collapsed into one.

12.  Checkpoint 16.3

     Suggestion:
     "Create a consistent style of presentation between pages." -> 
     "Create a consistent style of presentation across pages."

     Note: The current usage sounds strange to me, but may be correct in US 
     English. 

13.  Appendix B

     Suggestion:
     "Validate pages and assess the accessibility with automated tools" -> 
     "Validate pages and assess their accessibility with automated tools"

14.  Appendix B, bullet 6

     Suggestion:
     "Use a several browsers, old and new." -> 
     "Use several browsers, old and new."

15.  Appendix C, DHTML

     Suggestion:
     "Most guidelines may be applicable to DHTML-type of applications" ->
     "Most guidelines may be applicable to applications using DHTML" 

16.  Appendix C, PDA

     Suggestion:
     "devices. usually" -> 
     "devices, usually"

17.  References

     Suggestion:     
     Change all W3C references to point to the "latest version" of each 
     document, eg:
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424" -> 
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"

     The current references make it less likely that checkpoint 13.1 will be 
     adhered to.

18.  General

     Suggestion:
     " &nbsp;<span class="priority1">[Priority&nbsp;1]</span>" -> 
     " <span class="priority1">[Priority&nbsp;1]</span>"

     Ditto for the other priorities.

     The current extensive use of "&nbsp;" results in unnnecessary 
     formatting anomalies.

Misha Wolf
I18N WG Chair


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual  sender,
except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 1999 14:43:02 UTC