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

list of editorial changes to latest WCAG 2 draft

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:05:16 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c21d87$767ae070$c317a8c0@ippiii7501>

The following is a list of editorial changes made to the April 24
working draft in preparation for the June 26 draft:

General 

1. Removed issues that were included within the document and changed
issues class into reviewer’s note. Issues that were removed will be
added to an updated issues list in the near future. 

Introduction

1. Abstract, third sentence: now says, “It has the same aim: to explain
what makes Web content accessible to people with disabilities and to
define target levels of accessibility.” was “It has the same aim:
explain how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities.“

2. Status, first paragraph, second sentence: now says “This draft is not
yet based on consensus of the WCAG Working Group nor has it gone through
W3C process.” was “This draft is not based on consensus of the WCAG
Working Group nor has it gone through W3C process.”

3. Purpose, first paragraph, last sentence: now says “By making content
accessible to a variety of devices, that content will also be accessible
to people in a variety of situations.” was “By making content accessible
to a variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people in a
variety of situations.” 

4. How to read this document, top layer, item 5: now reads, “An appendix
containing definitions, refererences and other supporting information.”
was “An appendix containing definitions and other support information.” 

5. Priorities and Techniques, third paragraph, first sentence: now
reads, “The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is
working carefully to enable organizations and individuals that have
adopted WCAG 1.0 in the past to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To
facilitate this transition, please refer to the Checkpoint Mapping
Between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current
correspondences.” was “The WCAG Working Group is proceeding carefully to
minimize substantial differences between the WCAG 1.0 Recommendation and
the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft. Refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG
1.0 and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current
correspondences.

6. Designing Accessible Web Content, last sentence deleted: Links to the
Education and Outreach Group were included inline. Was, “Readers are
therefore referred to the Education and Outreach group of the Web
Accessibility Initiative. Further information can be found at
www.w3.org/wai/.” 

Guideline 1

1. Checkpoint 1.3 – Two new examples added to informative section.

2. Checkpoint 1.4 – added informative section (previous draft had none)

3. Added Checkpoint 1.5: “Provide information needed for unambiguous
decoding of the characters and words in the content.” 

Guideline 2

1. Checkpoint 2.1 changed to, “All of the functionality of the content
is operable through character input to the content or user agent.“ was
“Provide keyboard access to all functionality of the content.”

2. Checkpoint 2.2, definition of a competitive activity now reads, “A
competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of
the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the
performance of the participants. Versions of the activity (e.g. test)
that have no time basis or time limits might be preferred and may be
required for some venues but this would require a complete redesign of
the activity (e.g. test) and may change the character and validation
methodology and would therefore not fall under these guidelines.” was “A
competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of
the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the
performance of the participants. Activities that have no time basis or
time limits might be preferred and may be required for some venues but
this would require a complete redesign of the activity or test and would
therefore fall under guidelines.”

3. Checkpoint 2.3, minimum level, success criteria 1, item a now reads,
“content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49
Hz.” was “animation or other content does not visibly or purposely
flicker between 3 and 49 Hz.” 

Guideline 3

1. Checkpoint 3.2, level 2 success criteria: now reads, “The structural
emphases are chosen to be distinct for different major display types
(e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio playback)” was “(??
should we have something in level 2 about providing more than one type
of structural emphasis to match different display technologies)”

Guideline 4

1. Checkpoint 4.4 was deleted (subsumed by 1.5)

Guideline 5

1. Cleaned up formatting and incorporated latest proposals.

Appendix

1. See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002AprJun/0300.html for
a detailed list of changes.

--
Ben Caldwell | caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu)   
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 23:05:53 GMT

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