W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Guide doc: Drafts to discuss on Thursday

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:58:13 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3BFB7A8E@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello,

 

Attached to this message are drafts of "guides" to several success
criteria:

-         1.1 L1 SC2 (Wendy)

-         - 1.1 L1 SC3 (Ben)

-         - 2.4 L1 SC3 (Michael)

-         3.1 L1 SC1 and L2 SC4 (John)

 

In addition, there is a proposal for overhauling all of Guideline 3.1,
which is provided here as context for discussing the other drafts. (I'll
be sending the proposal and an issue summary to the list next week for
discussion at a later time.)

 

People who attended the face to face in Lost Angeles felt that a "Guide
to WCAG 2.0" might be needed to provide a better bridge between the
Guidelines themselves and the Techniques document.  At the meeting we
discussed what the Guide might look lile.

 

It would be organized by success criterion-each SC gets its own "page,"
as in the attached drafts. People felt that the Guide should include
definitions of key terms used in the SC; provide a rationale or describe
the intent of the SC; explain how the SC benefits people with
disabilities; and offer some examples. In addition, the Guide would
present (or perhaps link to) what we've been calling the General
Techniques, and provide links to technology-specific techniques,
including both sufficient and advisory/optional ones.

Wendy, Ben, Michael, and I each took a Guideline and developed drafts
for one or more SC.  (Becky was willing and ready, but I had asked her
to work on 4.2 and we agreed that it would be better to hold off till
4.2 stabilizes a little more.)  Gregg has been on the road or in the
air, but has reviewed drafts at various stages.

 

The common element for all the drafts is that they started from a basic
outline that I drafted and sent around, then modified slightly in light
of comments from people in the group. (I also sent the sample outline to
people outside WCAG WG to collect feedback about whether the headings,
etc., made sense; I'll report on that later.)

 

Each draft takes a different approach.  As a result, they highlight
different problems and possible solutions.  We ask that you review these
drafts before Thursday's call so that we can get your feedback and ideas
about how to proceed from here.  Thanks so much.

 

 

 

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

 



Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 04:58:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC