W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Comments and edits for the DRAFT WCAG 2.0

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:35:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000816102817.050c1f00@localhost>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg,

Good comments! I made most of these edits, a few I have marked as open 
issues and will be adding them to the open issues list.  I also have 
comments on a few of your suggestions.

ITEM 1
>WORDING IN THE INTRODUCTION
>
>3. A final point on this introduction is that we have to be careful not to
>imply that someone needs to follow all of the checkpoints in order to
>satisfy the guideline.  If the checkpoints give alternatives, we somehow
>should combine them and word them so that it's clear that when you do one of
>the two alternatives you have satisfied the issue.  Again, we can talk about
>this more when we talk about specific checkpoints.

I have documented this as an open issue.

>ITEM 2
>
>"Principle 1:  Ensure that all content can be presented through any single
>sensory channel or a combination of sensory channels that may be required by
>the user (e.g. all information only through vision or only through hearing,
>etc.)"
>

I did not take this wording since Marti had made the comment about the use 
of "sensory channel" and I agree that it can be a bit hard to 
understand.  Hopefully my proposed wording captures your ideas.

>ITEM 3
>
>Under Guideline 1.1 we talk about talking about a text equivalent for all
>non-text.  I would like to somehow get in here the idea that this needs to
>be electronic text.  Text by itself cannot be translated into any form but
>electronic text can.  Again, since we are talking about very general
>principles, I would like to eliminate right off the bat anyone thinking that
>putting a painted image of text on the screen solves the problem.  Remember
>that we are talking about many different formats and not just talking about
>html.  There maybe a wide variety of technologies in the future used to
>representative information.  The key here is that it be electronically
>readable.  Therefore, suggest that 1.1 be changed to.
>
>"1.1 provide (an electronically readable) text equivalent for every non-text
>(auditory or graphical) component or multi-media presentation".

I did not make this edit.  I would like to know more about the "wide 
variety of technologies in the future used to representative 
information."  I am concerned that these are all electrons and that 
"electronic text" is not the best clarification and actually may confuse 
people.


>ITEM  4

Added as open issue.


>ITEM  5

open issue.  wording for current WCAG 1.3 is in process. we'll see how that 
goes.

>ITEM  6 - 11

done.

>ITEM  12
>
>Priorities.

open issue.


>ITEM  13 - 22

done.

Thanks,
--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2000 10:33:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT