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

Re: Editorial changes to Requirements for WCAG 2.0

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:47:06 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 04:38 PM 4/26/02, Judy Brewer wrote:
>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:
>>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

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 17:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC