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

Re: Organization of WCAG 2.0 and checklists

From: Doyle B <doyleb@alaska.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 07:38:06 -0900
Message-ID: <000701c280fb$e454bb20$6601a8c0@madyburnett>
To: <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I fully agree with Jason...putting the explanations one level deeper than
the guidelines is not a good idea.  They should be together as is the case
with other sets of guidelines.  Keeping them this way will make it easier
for first time readers for sure.

Doyle Burnett

Special Education Service Agency
Anchorage, Alaska

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Organization of WCAG 2.0 and checklists


>
> In commenting on WCAG 2.0, Terry Thompson suggested that the W3C
> Recommendation should contain only the normative parts of the
> guidelines document, and that the non-normative  (explanations,
> examples etc.) should reside in a separate document, connected to the
> guidelines via links.
>
> I disagree with this proposal, mainly because it is completely out of
> line with W3C practice, including the design of other guidelines
> documents. I think there ought to be some uniformity in structure,
> organization and, where possible, terminology across W3C guidelines as
> such. Also, in order to understand the guidelines it is often
> desirable, even if not strictly necessary, to read the explanatory
> notes and examples; separating them from the principal document would
> greatly reduce their visibility to first-time readers.
>
> As an alternative I suggest:
>
> 1. that as in WCAG 1.0 we create a checklist, in this case comprising
>    only guidelines, checkpoints and success criteria, to be published
>    with the guidelines as part of the W3C Recommendation.
>
> 2. that a link to this checklist be included in the principal
>    guidelines document, as close to the beginning as is possible while
>    conforming to W3C publication policy.
>
> 3. As Gregg? suggested, it might also be useful to provide such a
>    checklist in the form of a table. If so, this should be included as
>    well.
>
> I am hopeful that a solution of this kind (with or without
> modifications) will be judged satisfactory.
> It also eliminates the problem of having four types of document:
> guidelines, guidelines +comments/examples, techniques and checklists.
> On the present proposal there would only be guidelines, techniques and
> checklists (including one checklist linked near the start of the
> guidelines themselves).
>
> Further, I like of Andi's suggestion of a web page that gives links to all
> of the checklists and techniques documents as well as other relevant
> publications. Actually, the checklist page may amount to a form
> through which the dynamic generation process can be controlled, but
> that is a decision yet to be taken.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:39:15 GMT

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