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

RE: Request for Review: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:27:04 -0700
Message-ID: <5DB489EF44C5444A9974E3E934CD834C0411F803@ex-600town-03.macromedia.com>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <andrew_kirkpatrick@wgbh.org>

Wendy, 

I like the usage scenarios and you are definitely headed in the right direction. As you rightly pointed out, it is not necessary to create a comprehensive list of roles involved in the process. It is enough to create a few ideal types against which we can measure the techniques documents. 

That being said, I do have a couple of comments on the categories. First, I have been thinking about my days at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. There, the bulk of people who create content for the web would fall under the category of 'content creator'. Many of these people are faculty, administrative staff and support staff who know very little HTML. They can use FrontPage, Dreamweaver or Composer to get stuff up on the web but raw code is a little intimidating. For these folks, the WCAG 2.0 is not likely to be a place they will search for guidance on creating a site. I would expect these folks to do one of two things. First, they might try the manual or web site for their authoring tool. Second and perhaps more likely, they may seek out the local 'expert' to ask for help. 

In both cases, it would be great if there was a simple, non-technical explanation of the guidelines written for people who fall into this category. Geoff and Chuck's original document was great in that it did not require too much technical knowledge to understand. It explained frequently used concepts such as 'graceful transformation'. It also included several examples. This would give both the tool manufacturer and the local 'expert' reference material to use in support of accessibility policies. 

One of the biggest challenges I faced while working at the UW-Madison (which required AA compliance from all sites for about a year) was that there was simply not enough reference material available to use in training these users. Geoff and Chuck's course was my course for a long time until I finally wrote my own based on the various tools I was teaching at the time. We will need something for the WCAG2.0 for use by local experts in support of novice and intermediate level content creators. 

This may be an EO project. However, given that sheer volume of people who fall into this category, the success of the WCAG20 will hinge on proper implementation by this group. This means that there needs to be significant coordination to make sure my company is doing what it can to support these guidelines when the time comes and perhaps more importantly, to make sure there are resources available to help these designers understand the guidelines as written. 

Second, in your scenarios you mention that authoring tool developers don't need to reference the WCAG 2.0 to do their job. Actually, the WCAG is probably one of the most referenced documents. I know that in setting each schedule, I am constantly referring back to that document to check what is possible, what is not possible and what we can make easier in Dreamweaver. 

Sorry for the long response. Thanks for all of your hard work here. 

Cheers,
Bob

______________________________________
 
bob regan | macromedia | 608.258.2587

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 3:58 PM
To: Bob Regan; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'
Subject: Re: Request for Review: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

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 Monday, 30 September 2002 18:27:42 GMT

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