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

Re: Notes on WCAG 2.0 16 November internal (introductory material only)

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:05:25 -0500
Message-ID: <419D1CA5.7020807@w3.org>
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

John,
Thank you.

John M Slatin wrote:

> Heare are suggested changes to the introductory material as I find it 
> in the 16 November internal working draft. I believe that all these 
> suggestions are purely editorial and do not affect the substance of 
> the statements made. None of these is a show-stopper, though it would 
> be nice if we could correct all instances where the word "criteria" is 
> misused as a singular (the correct singular form is "criterion"; 
> "criteria" is plural), and it would be nice if we could correct the 
> grammatical mistakes in the descriptions of the Level 1 and 2 success 
> criteria.
> 3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information
> - "... approaches where they exist." should be "... approaches, where 
> they exist."

fixed

> Audience
> - "... many different audiences from policy makers ..." should be "... 
> many different audiences, from policy makers ..."

fixed

> - First readers are referred to the work of the EO group, but there 
> are no links to anything about WCAG 2.0 on the referenced page. Add a 
> note to say that, so people don't go on a wild goose chase?

Added phrase with link, "In particular, Getting Started: Making a Web 
Site Accessible."

> Authoring tools
> - Delete first sentence, or rewrite to clarify that we mean (e.g.) 
> WYSIWYG authoring tools. As it is, it's a tautology.

The sentence you reference is, "A large part of Web content is created 
using authoring tools."
I understand your point, yet deleting it doesn't make sense and WYSISYG 
is too restrictive. I'm leaving as is for now, but will add an issue to 
fix it later.

> - <current>
> We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider the 
> conformance to the
> Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
> when selecting tools.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider 
> conformance to the
> Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as a criterion
> when selecting tools.
> </proposed>
>
adopted.

> Scope
> - <current>
> In general, the guidelines do not include standard usability 
> recommendations except where they
> have specific ramifications for accessibility beyond standard 
> usability impacts.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> In general, the guidelines do not include standard usability 
> recommendations except where they
> have specific ramifications for accessibility.
> </proposed>
>
adopted.

> Baseline editor's note
> -<current>
> help make up for common shortcomings of content authors
> </current>
> <proposed>
> help make up for common errors by content authors
> </proposed>
>
adopted

>  Level 1 success criteria:
> -current>
> 2. Can be reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> 2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
> </proposed> (Note: this has been pointed out many times before and the 
> mistake keeps coming back...)
>
fixed.

>  Level 2 success criteria:
> -<current>
> B. recommends content and/or presentation that provides direct 
> accessibility without requiring users or their user agents to do 
> anything different from
> users without disabilities
> </current>
> <proposed>
> B. recommending content and/or presentation that provides direct 
> accessibility without requiring users who have disabilities or their 
> user agents to do anything different from
> users without disabilities or their user agents
> </proposed> (Note: this is grammatically better than the current 
> wording, but the pronoun references are ambiguous and will need to be 
> fixed)
>
adopted

> -<current>
> 2. Can be reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> 2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
> </proposed> (Note: same as above. This has been corrected previously 
> but keeps coming back!)
>
adopted

> -<current>
> Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels 
> assigned to each criteria, a square bracket notation is included at 
> the end of each criteria.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels 
> assigned to each criterion, a square bracket notation is included at 
> the end of each criterion.
> </proposed>
>
adopted.

> Conformance Claims
> -<current>
> identifying the delivery units of which the claim is made. A resource 
> conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level only if all content 
> provided by that resource so conforms.
> </current>
> <proposed>
> identifying the delivery units for which the claim is made. A resource 
> conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given conformance level only if all content 
> provided by that resource so conforms.
> </proposed>
>
adopted.

> Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0
> - Note: this paragraph uses terms like "want" and "claim," but the 
> grammatical subject is "content< which cannot want or claim anything.
> <current>
> Content that currently conforms to WCAG 1.0 that want to transition to 
> WCAG 2.0 over time may want to capitalize on past accessibility 
> efforts. A qualified
> </current>
> <proposed>
> Authors of Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0 who wish to transition 
> gradually to WCAG 2.0 may want to consider making a qualified
> </proposed>
>
another editor already caught this. text changed although slightly 
different from John's suggestion.

> - Does the last sentence of this paragraph belong *inside* the 
> hypothetical qualified conformance claim, or is it an explanatory note 
> by WCAG WG *about* the limits of that qualified conformance claim?
>
already caught.

> Overview of Design Principles
> <current>
> Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people 
> with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by bicycles, 
> people pushing strollers, and people in wheelchairs. Similarly, 
> accessible Web content is beneficial to a variety of people with and 
> without disabilities. For example, people who are temporarily 
> operating under constrained conditions like operating in a noisy 
> environment where they can not hear well or at all, or driving their 
> car where their eyes are busy would benefit from a accessible content. 
> Likewise, a search engine can find a famous quote in a movie if the 
> movie is captioned.
> </current>
> Note: We have to fix this. First, we appear to be encouraging people 
> to use Web content while driving... Second the example of the search 
> engine finding a movie quote seems to contradict the following note 
> which says that these guidelines apply only to content intended for 
> human users.
> <proposed>
> Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people 
> with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by people 
> riding bicycles or pushing baby strollers as well as people in 
> wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible Web content is beneficial to a 
> variety of people with and without disabilities. For example, people 
> who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions such as 
> extremely noisy environments or poor lighting would benefit from 
> accessible content. Likewise, someone using a search engine can find a 
> famous line in a movie if the movie
> has been captioned to support users who are hard of hearing.
> </proposed>
>
adopted.

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:05:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT