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

Request for Review: WCAG 2.0 Working Draft

From: Blaire Bundy <bundy@doit.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:08:08 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021021120801.023c5d00@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org



1. In general, is this WCAG 2.0 Working Draft easy to understand? Please 
identify sections or phrases that are difficult to understand. Please 
suggest alternative wording for us to consider.

2. The priority structure of this WCAG 2.0 Working Draft differs from WCAG 
1.0. Is this structure easy to understand? Would it be effective?"

3. If your site already uses WCAG 1.0, do you think it would be difficult 
to migrate from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0? What would make it easier? Please 
note that supporting documents,  such as technology-specific techniques 
documents, are not yet available.

________________________________________________________________

I really have nothing but good things to say about the improvements 
outlined in WCAG 2.0

Overall:

I find the wording, organization and layout of WCAG 2.0 to be much more 
understandable than WCAG 1.0.  I think that the addition of an adjective 
associated with each guideline makes the guideline more digestible and the 
overall document more comprehensible.  WCAG 1.0 seemed like a lot of 
information to absorb in order to get the bigger picture of how the 
guidelines (when applied together) make content more 
accessible.  Structuring in WCAG 2.0 ties each of the Checkpoints back to 
the associated guideline.  I think, especially for new users, Perceivable | 
Operable | Navigable are good jumping-off points.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that WCAG 2.0 makes a better attempt at 
satisfying multiple audiences, i.e., those who access the guidelines to 
simply "check-off" and those who access because they really want to learn 
more about Web accessibility.  Those are often very differing sets of users 
and difficult to develop for both.  I anticipate WCAG 2.0 to better 
accommodate a variety of user needs.

I do not think that the transition form 1.0 - 2.0 will be difficult. I 
anticipate that those who are familiar with 1.0 should quickly adapt to 2.0.


Specific comments:

Under the section titled, "Audience" I think that first time users should 
be taken to an appropriate/friendly work of the EOWG, rather than to the 
work of EOWG.  http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/  is not a page for first time users.

I strongly support the organization and flow of the success criteria for 
each Checkpoint and I like the movement toward making each requirement 
verifiable.  Should help those who are making/enforcing policy as well as 
for those who are asked/forced to comply.

Definitions | Benefits | Examples  - excellent and necessary addition to 
the Guidelines.  Thank you for taking this out of my hands.  I can't tell 
you how much time and energy (for instructional purposes) went into 
developing accompanying materials.  Less chance for 
misinformation/inaccurate examples.


Thanks for your continued efforts and improvements . . .



Christopher Blaire Bundy
Learning Technology and Distance Education (LTDE)
Division of Information Technology (DoIT)
University of Wisconsin-Madison bundy@doit.wisc.edu
608.265.3668
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 11:58:37 GMT

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