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

Issues summary for Mapping from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:07:56 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8B6E9829.0AC80873-ON86256F6B.00588B4C-86256F6B.00589E51@us.ibm.com>
At the face to face meeting, I took the action to summarize all issues
against the WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 mapping [1] and make proposals to resolve as
many as possible.

This note is organized in sections that are marked with beginning and
ending indicators as follows:

proposals
issues resolved in current draft or by proposals
remaining unresolved issues

<proposals>

Proposa # 1
I propose that we only use two terms: normative and informative. Normative
is defined in the glossary but informative needs to be added.

Proposed definition of informative: Information provided to clarify or
illustrate a requirement but which is not required for conformance.

Proposal # 2
Also, there is a proposal from Gregg for adding some text to the document
to explain how the normative and informative content is presented in the
document. I don't see this in the November draft so here is a proposal for
incorporating Gregg's content into the Introduction:

1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Success Criteria
The top layer is titled "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0". It is
the document you are currently reading. This document provides:

An introduction

The 4 major principles for accessibility (Perceivable, Operable,
Understandable and Robust).

The (non-technology-specific) guidelines (13 in total).

Success criteria (normative), and definitions, benefits and examples (all
informative) for each guideline

An appendix containing definitions, references and other support
information.

Note that all normative information is treated differently visually, in
mark-up and in text (labels) from information which is informative.
Informative information is not intermixed with normative information unless
it is very clear that it is informative.

Proposal # 3
There are a lot of issues related to understanding how to migrate from WCAG
1.0 to WCAG 2.0. Our current mapping maps WCAG 2.0 guidelines to WCAG 1.0
checkpoints. What we need is a mapping of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0
success criteria with good indicators about which WCAG 1.0 checkpoints have
changed in priority or are no longer required and which WCAG 2.0 success
criteria are new requirements.

I started a draft of this which is attached below:
(See attached file: WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 SC 12-15-04.html)

<end of proposals>

<issues resolved in current draft or by proposals>

389 [2]
- issues about core/extended vs. single-A, double-A, and triple-A are
overcome by events (OBE)
- to solve the other issues in 389 will require a thorough examination of
the mapping in proposal # 3 above and development of explanations for each
of the differences.

390 [3]
- disagrees with mapping of some WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to 4.2 that should be
mapped to 4.3. This is overcome by events (OBE) because there is no longer
a guideline 4.3

505 [4]
- wants technology-specific checklists because WCAG 2.0 is more ambiguous
and evaluation and repair tools developers need specifics
I believe the techniques documents and test suites solve this issue.
- other comments in this issue should be solved by the mapping in proposal
# 3 above

548 [5]
- this issue has been closed and moved to another work items list. I had
already worked on a proposal to resolve it so I included it above.
- confusion about normative, non-normative, and informative resolved with
proposal # 1 above
- request for better explanation on the transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0
should be resolved with the final mapping in proposal # 3 above

835 [6]
- resolved with proposal # 3

1014 [7]
- once proposal # 3 is completed with explanations for each of the
differences, this issue will be resovled

<end of issues resolved in current draft or by proposals>

<remaining unresolved issues>

462 [8]
- complains that good things previously in WCAG 1.0 have been removed from
2.0 but no specific recommendations
- recommend follow up with Tina Holmboe. Anybody have her e-mail address?

482 [9]
- recommends that WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, and 11.4 are critical
and must be part of the core (or minimum) level of conformance in WCAG 2.0
6.1: documents must be readable without style sheets. The mapping shows
this mapped to guideline 1.3 but I don't see a success criteria for it
6.3: pages must be usable with scripts, applets, or other programmatic
objects turned off. This one maps in part to guideline 4.2 Level 3 SC 2. We
can't make this Level 1 because of our baseline assumption.
6.5: dynamic content must be accessible or provide an alternative
presentation or page. This one does map to guideline 4.2 Level 1 SC
11.4: provide an alternative text page if you can't make the page
accessible. The mapping shows this mapped to guideline 4.2 but there is no
success criteria for it.

978 [10]
- editorial suggestions on the formatting of the lists in Appendix C. I
will leave this to a real editor to decide

1178 [11]
- requests strategies and best practices for transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to
WCAG 2.0. Maybe EO could take this assignment?

<end of remaining unresolved issues>

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/11/19-mapping.html
[2] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=389
[3] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=390
[4] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=505
[5] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=548
[6] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=835
[7] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1014
[8] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=462
[9] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=482
[10] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=978
[11] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1178


Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center


Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 16:08:31 GMT

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