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

Re: Request for Review: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:58:10 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020927163705.02446190@localhost>
To: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>

Bob,

Thank you for your review.  Your thoughts on minimum level conformance of 
WCAG 2.0  are interesting.  Since we have been discussing the supplementary 
materials, I want to follow-up on something you said in your review.

You said:
>However, I still think this document needs support in the form of 
>techniques documents and training materials that are very, very specific. 
>The training module written by Geoff Freed and Chuck LeTourneau for WCAG10 
>was great but there needs to be several different documents explaining the 
>new guidelines for different levels of skill in different fields.

Those pieces are not there yet, but will be.  We have been trying to better 
understand the various types of  information required by different 
people.  To this end, I drafted the basis of a usage scenarios document and 
thoughts about technology-specific checkpoints. [1,2]

Any specific suggestions for what needs to be provided and how? What was it 
about the training module that you found most helpful?

In the usage scenarios, do you see any skill levels that are not 
represented?  If you do, could you give us a better idea of a user who you 
have in mind?

FYI, WCAG 2.0 techniques info available at [3].

Thanks,
--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/09/authoring-scenarios.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/09/tech-check.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag20.html#techs

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 16:50:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT