W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

Editorial changes to Requirements for WCAG 2.0

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:35:28 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020426110514.0242c050@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Here is the detailed list of editorial changes.  The doc is available from:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements

We are moving forward with publication to TR and expect something in the 
next few days.  This is to inform the WG of the changes that were 
made.  Discussion and suggestions from here on out will be incorporated 
into the next draft.

1. Added an abstract. It says:
This document lists the requirements for the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0).  Appendix A lists a set of statements that the 
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) has agreed to 
while writing WCAG 2.0.  These statements will help frame future decisions.

2. Added an Introduction. It says:
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0) explains how to make 
Web content accessible to people with disabilities. It was written for Web 
content developers (page authors and site designers) and developers of 
authoring tools. The primary goal of WCAG 1.0 is to promote accessibility. 
However, following the guidelines in WCAG 1.0 will also make Web content 
more available to all users.

Since the release of WCAG 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation in May 1999, the WCAG 
WG has received feedback about the usability, understandability, and 
applicability of the suite of documents.  This feedback is driving the 
development of WCAG 2.0 and is captured as the Requirements for WCAG 2.0 
(this document).

The goal of WCAG 2.0 is the same as 1.0:  to promote accessibility of Web 
content.  The other goals listed in this document are:
Ensure that requirements may be applied across technologies
Ensure that the conformance requirements are clear
Ensure that the deliverables are easy to use
Write to a more diverse audience
Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content
Ensure that the revision is "backwards compatible

3. paragraph 2 of the Status section used to say:
This is a W3C Working Draft produced by the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines Working Group. The purpose of this document is to outline the 
requirements for the next version of the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines. The working group encourages feedback about these requirements 
as well as participation in the development of the revision by people who 
have experience trying to create Web content that conforms to WCAG 1.0.

now it says:
This is a W3C Working Draft produced by the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG). The purpose of this document is to 
outline the requirements for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. The 
Working Group encourages feedback about these requirements as well as 
participation in the development of the revision by people who have 
experience trying to create Web content that conforms to WCAG 1.0.

4. Requirement 1 used to read:
WCAG 2.0 will include requirements for:
Presentation (e.g., CSS and HTML, PDF)
Multimedia (e.g., SMIL, SVG, Flash)
Structure (e.g., HTML, MathML)
Metadata (e.g., RDF)
Interactivity (e.g., DOM, JavaScript)
Designing new languages (e.g. XML)

Now it reads:
WCAG 1.0 was written primarily for HTML documents.  Authors trying to apply 
WCAG 1.0 to XML applications have had difficulty.  Thus, WCAG 2.0 should be 
applicable across technologies such as:
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL)
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)
Math Markup Language (MathML)
Resource Description Framework (RDF)
Extensible Markup Language (XML) applications

5. expanded the acronyms for ERT and EO in the 1st paragraph under 
requirement 2.

6. the first bullet under requirement 4 used to read:
Create accessible, innovative, internationalized Web sites.

now it reads:
Create accessible, innovative Web sites.

the 4th bullet now reads:
Document the assumptions that underlie the minimum requirements
(it used to say "underly")

7. The last paragraph under requirement 4 used to read
The number, length, and organization of the deliverables must meet the 
different needs of these readers. As part of ensuring that the diverse 
needs of readers are met, the WG will work closely with the Education and 
Outreach Working Group.

now it reads (new sentence added to incorporate idea of "internationalized" 
that was deleted from 1st bullet):
The number, length, and organization of the deliverables must meet the 
different needs of these readers. The language used in the deliverables 
should be as easy as possible to translate into other languages and 
localized examples should be provided where possible. As part of ensuring 
that the diverse needs of readers are met, the WG will work closely with 
the Education and Outreach Working Group.

8. requirement 6 used to read:
A number of other materials and tools reference WCAG 1.0, such as ATAG 1.0, 
the WCAG Curriculum, U.S. Government Section 508 Guidelines, AERT, Bobby, 
etc. Therefore, a revision of WCAG 1.0 must not completely change the 
definition of accessible content but clarify the complexities and fix the 
specifics.

now it reads:
A number of other materials and tools reference WCAG 1.0, such as 
specifications, evaluation tools, authoring tools, and government and 
organizational policies. Therefore, WCAG 2.0 must not completely change the 
definition of accessible content.

9. the first sentence in appendix a used to read:
The following are statements that the WCAG Working Group has reached 
consensus on and will be using to build the new WCAG 2.0 Guidelines.

now it reads:
The following are statements that the WCAG Working Group has reached 
consensus on as of the date of this document and will be using to build the 
new WCAG 2.0 Guidelines.

10. N1 used to read:
N1 -that technology specific checkpoints should be normative

At yesterday's telecon we agreed we do not have consensus on that item. We 
deleted it and replaced it with:
N1 -  [Deleted due to changes in structure]

11. N9 used to read:
N-9 Our normative portions would (as qualified) apply to sites in general. 
Our informative portions can give information that may apply to sites in 
general or to special targeted sites as long as they are clearly labeled.

now it reads (discussed at yesterday's telecon):
N9 - Normative portions apply to sites in general. Most informative 
portions also apply to sites in general. However, some informative portions 
may apply only to specially targetted sites and those informative portions 
will be clearly labelled in the guidelines.

12. C5 used to read:
C5 - we WCAG should provide a way for people to see impact of items for 
particular disabilities but it should not be used for conformance.

now it reads (got rid of "we"):
C5 -  WCAG should provide a way for people to see impact of items for 
particular disabilities but it should not be used for conformance.

13. C7 used to read:
C7 - The success criteria (for a checkpoint) must be sufficient. (i.e. if 
you do them you comply. You would not have to do anything not in the list 
of success criteria.)

now it reads (discussed at yesterday's telecon):
C7 - The success criteria for a checkpoint must be sufficient; following 
the success criteria should be all that is needed to claim conformance to 
the checkpoint.

14. expanded the acronym for EARL in M1.

15. G2 used to read:
G2 - Accessibility and usability are intertwined and vary between people 
and tasks. We think that our distinctions and decisions about normative or 
importance will be based on something other than categorizing them as an 
"accessibility" or "usability" items.

now it reads (got rid of the "an" before accessibility):
G2 - Accessibility and usability are intertwined and vary between people 
and tasks. We think that our distinctions and decisions about normative or 
importance will be based on something other than categorizing them as 
"accessibility" or "usability" items.

16. G3 used to read:
G3 - User vs. User needs is something we need to look at on a case-by-case 
basis, but it is also a test we need to apply to every normative 
requirement anyway. Need to ask"If this done, is some group being cut out?"

now it reads:
G3 - User vs. user needs is something we need to look at on a case-by-case 
basis, but it is also a test we need to apply to every normative 
requirement. We need to ask ourselves, "If this is done, will some group be 
cut out?"

17. A1 used to read:
A1 - The working group acknowledges that accessibility to everyone is not 
possible. Our target is to make things as accessible to as many people as 
possible given then need to have practical techniques and criteria. We will 
expend our best effort to identify techniques, criteria and examples that 
would cover the greatest range possible.

now it reads (changed "then need" to "the need", capped Working Group, 
replaced "expend" with "make"):
A1 - The Working Group acknowledges that accessibility to everyone is not 
possible. Our target is to make things as accessible to as many people as 
possible given the need to have practical techniques and criteria. We will 
make our best effort to identify techniques, criteria and examples that 
cover the greatest range possible.

Best,
--wendy

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 11:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT