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

RE: VOTE

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 06:56:50 -0500
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F003C20D66@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: 'Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo' <emmanuelle@teleline.es>, GV@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
John Slatin here.

I also like the wording Loretta proposes for Alternative 4.  But it does
omit something that seemed an important aspect of the three previous
alternatives: the explicit invitation to those who've previously adopted
WCAG 1.0 to make the transition to 2.0.  As a result, this alternative may
create the impression that sites that (a) conform to 1.0 and (b) rely
primarily or exclusively on HTML need n ot concern themselves with 2.0.

I propose adding an introductory clause to the last sentence: "To facilitate
transition to WCAG 2.0 for those who previously adopted WCAG 1.0..."  The
full paragraph would now read as follows:

==ALTERNATIVE 4a begins==

WCAG 2.0 is based on the same principles as WCAG 1.0. However, it is
designed to be less technology-specific so that it is clearer and easier
to apply those principles to a wide range of technologies. To facilitate
transition to WCAG 2.0 for those who previously adopted WCAG 1.0, the
Checkpoint Mapping between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft shows the
way that the principles of WCAG 1.0 have been generalized in WCAG 2  

==Alternative 4a ends==


-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo [mailto:emmanuelle@mi.madritel.es]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:20 AM
To: GV@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: VOTE


I like version 4.
regards,
Emmanuelle

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <GV@trace.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: VOTE


> Loretta's rewrite seems to capture nicely the objectives of the previous
> versions.
> 
> Please comment on this wording.  
> Also, if you like the others better - please comment.   
> 
> Gregg
> 
>  
> Loretta wrote
> 
>  After considering the 3 alternatives, I'm proposing ALTERNATE 4:
>  
> WCAG 2.0 is based on the same principles as WCAG 1.0. However, it is
> designed to be less technology-specific so that it is clearer and easier
> to apply those principles to a wide range of technologies. The
> Checkpoint Mapping between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft shows the
> way that the principles of WCAG 1.0 have been generalized in WCAG 2
> 
> Loretta
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 07:56:55 GMT

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