- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:58:10 -0400
- 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 UTC