W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Comments of WCAG 2.0 draft

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:57:06 +0100
Message-Id: <200102231357.f1NDv6g14147@zidane.inria.fr>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Some comments on 
     http://www.w3.org/WAI/TR/2001/WD-WCAG20-20010125


> WCAG Working Group nor has it gone through W3C process. Checkpoints in this
> Working Draft in no way supersede the checkpoints in WCAG 1.0.

Nothing in this WD supersedes stuff in WCAG1.0 (not just the checkpoints)

> Several edits have been made to the document and have been marked as

edits ? specifically by someone ?

> "[Proposed]." Once these have been reviewed and accepted by the WCAG Working
> Group they will be marked as "[New]" for a couple of drafts thereafter.

Sounds like this is a new document altogether, not based on consensus,
so why this markup ? It's kind of confusing.
 
>    * Guidelines and Checkpoints
>         o Guideline 1. Design content that allows presentation according to
>           the user's needs and preferences
>              + 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content.
>              + 1.2 Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia
>                presentations.
>              + 1.3 Synchronize a description of the essential visual
>                information in multimedia presentations.
>              + 1.4 Use markup or a data model to provide the logical
>                structure of content.
>              + 1.5 Separate content and structure from presentation.
>              + 1.6 Use device-independent event handlers.
>              + 1.7 Ensure that content remains accessible when newer
>                technologies are not supported or turned off.
>         o Guideline 2. Design content that allows interaction according to
>           the user's needs and preferences
>              + 2.1 Provide consistent interaction behaviors and navigation
>                mechanisms.
>              + 2.2 Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability
>                to concentrate.
>              + 2.3 Give users control of mechanisms that cause extreme
>                changes in context.
>              + 2.4 Give users control over how long they can spend reading
>                or interacting with content.
>              + 2.5 If search functions are provided, provide a variety of
>                search options for different skill levels and preferences.
>         o Guideline 3. Design for ease of comprehension
>              + 3.1 Use consistent presentation.
>              + 3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning,
>                and labels.
>              + 3.3 Write clearly and simply.
>              + 3.4 Use multimedia to illustrate concepts.
>              + 3.5 Summarize complex information.
>              + 3.6 Define key terms, abbreviations, acronyms, and
>                specialized language.
>              + 3.7 Divide information into smaller, more manageable units.
>         o Guideline 4. Design for compatibility and interoperability
>              + 4.1 Choose languages, API's, and protocols that support the
>                use of these guidelines.
>              + 4.2 Use languages, API's, and protocols according to
>                specification.
>              + 4.3 Design assistive-technology compatible user interfaces.

At that point, I'll focus on the overall organization of
guidelines/checkpoints.

I like the 4 abstract guidelines cut.

As far as the checkpoints are concerned, I am surprised that 

  1.6 Use device-independent event handlers.
is not part of 
  Guideline 2. Design content that allows interaction ..

that
  1.7 Ensure that content remains accessible when newer
      technologies are not supported or turned off.
is not in 
  Guideline 4. Design for compatibility and interoperability

and that
  2.1 Provide consistent interaction behaviors and navigation..
  2.2 Minimize content that interferes with the user's ability..
are not in
  Guideline 3. Design for ease of comprehension


other stuff:

in  Example 1. A clip from a movie is published on a Web site that
    contains a scene where a child is trying to lure an alien to
    the child's bedroom by laying a trail of candy. The child is
    talking to himself as he lays the trail, but it is not obvious when 
    not watching the video that this is what he is doing. Therefore, a
    short description is interspersed with the child's talking 
    that says "Charlie lays a piece of candy on each stair leading to
    his room." Similar descriptions are included throughout the rest
    of the clip.  

it's unclear what the "that this is what he is doing" is referring to.
I thought it was the "talking to himself" part, but the short
description is about the "lays the trail" part.

In 2.1
... These [Navigation] mechanisms may include:
   ..
   image maps. 

image maps are just a way to implement a toc/index, etc. so should not
be there, different level.


In Guideline 3. the preamble

  Note: this guideline is applicable only in circumstances in which the
  Web content is intended to be presented to a human reader. A
  structured data base or collection of metadata, in circumstances
  where the user interface is supplied entirely by the client
  application, lies outside the scope of this guideline.

is kind of confusing.

In the XMLGL PF work, we're now making the difference between XML
languages used to represent data (and structured database is ok) and
XML languages used to represent metadata (whether it's a program like
XSLT or XML Query, or statements, like RDF).

The UI part is confusing. UI is always supplied by the client, by
definition.


PS: there's a bunch of broken internal links.
Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 08:57:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT