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

Re: Editorial changes to Requirements for WCAG 2.0

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:38:16 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020426162834.01c65120@localhost>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 11:35 AM 4/26/2002 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>Here is the detailed list of editorial changes.  The doc is available from:
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20-requirements
>
><...>
>
>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.

This is ambiguous. It sounds like it is a documentation of requirements 
that were incorporated into a completed document, not the requirements for 
something that you are building, which is the case here. It sounds as 
though the statements in the requirements document might be applied to 
something in the future beyond WCAG 2.0, rather than to decisions on 
Working Drafts of WCAG 2.0 as it evolves. Moreover, it does not emphasize 
the fact that feedback on the Requirements document is welcomed, which is a 
particularly important role of the abstract of a Requirements document.

In terms of resolving these ambiguities, actually you've got the ideal text 
already in place under the "Status" section, at paragraph 2:

"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."

Since it appears that the status section would work fine without that 
paragraph, and since that paragraph accomplishes everything that's needed 
in an abstract, and the WCAG WG has already presumably approved that 
language, I'd recommend moving the 2nd paragraph of the Status section up 
as a replacement for the abstract that was recently added.

- Judy


-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 16:40:56 GMT

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