W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Request for feedback on Gateway to Techniques working draft

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:31:07 -0500
To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000062775727@spamarrest.com>
Thanks John,


These docs all look the same. 

Hard to figure out what all these docs are about.  We need to think about
this in general.



Specific to this doc - a couple quick thoughts


1) Possibly move the "sections referred to"  information further to the
right to line up with intro sentence? Or be inline with it ? or?

Maybe just put them in line with each other  for example


Guideline 1.1   L1 SC 1

Guideline 3.3   L3 SC 3


2)  the word TASK is not defined and I think could  be confusing to readers.




 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:13 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Request for feedback on Gateway to Techniques working draft


I'm writing on behalf of myself and Tom Croucher to request feedback on the
new Working Draft of Gateway to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 published on 30


The draft is available at


This draft treats only Guideline 1.1 and is not complete (for example, there
is no discussion of how to describe complex images such as charts, graphs,
maps, etc., or works of visual art, as required under Level 1; and there is
no discussion of the Level 3 requirement to provide a text transcript for
multimedia that includes both the caption-text and transcriptions of all
audio description).


Despite this incompleteness, the draft does serve to indicate the general
approach we're taking in this document. But before we go much farther, it
would help us to get some feedback from the list: 


The Gateway document is meant to help people move from the high-level
principles and success criteria specified in WCAG 2.0 to the detailed tips
on implementation in the technology-specific Techniques documents (such as
HTML and CSS Techniques).  Given this role, does the 30 July Working Draft
of Gateway address the *kinds* of issues you would expect? Is the document
clear and understandable? Does the general approach seem to make sense?


If your answer to any of those questions is "No," please help us out by
explaining the problem(s) as you see it (them) and, if you can, suggest what
would work better.


Thanks very much!


John and Tom

"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web  <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>


Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 18:31:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC