RE: WCAG Guidelines and Support DocumentsV2.doc

Comments marked GV: Below 

I could not attend the second half of yesterday's teleconference, so I don't
know if the following questions were
discussed:

1. Is the mapping document part of "Comparison with WCAG 1.0" (one of the
chapters/appendices of WCAG 2.0)? 

*GV: I  believe that the mapping document is intended to be part of that
appendix.*  





It does not seem to fit the description of "Annotated Checklist".

* GV: Correct, the mapping is not an "annotated checklist" 





2. "There is an individual Techniques Document for every technique listed in
a Guide Document": currently, there is one Techniques Document per
technology. This makes it easy to find techniques just by using your
brower's seach function. It's also good for people who prefer scrolling to
clicking. There is a proposal to create these long documents ("A collection
of all technique documents will be available as a single document."); I
think they deserve better treatmeant than just "afterthoughts".

*GV: None of the components in the plan are afterthoughts - as evidenced by
the fact that they are all described in advance of the creation of any of
the docs.   They are derived from a concatenation of all of the 'atoms'
though so they will grow as the 'atoms' are created.   One of the purposes
of the docs is exactly what you describe.   Note however that one of the
functions of the OLD WCAG 1.0 techniques docs (which was topical grouping of
techniques) would be met by the 'Topics' documents now and not by the
techniques docs.*






3. "In addition to the Guide Document for each success criterion, there is
also an additional Guide Document for each guideline." Why not create a
Guide Document per guideline that also contains guidance for both the
guideline and all the success criteria it contains (rather than the extreme
atomicity from the proposal)? This would make it easier for a reader to see
how related success criteria work together towards to goal expressed in the
guideline.


*GV:  This is an idea we can consider,  either now or after the atoms have
been built.    WG members - please think about pros and cons for this versus
the full atomic approach for our next discussion. 




Regards,

Christophe Strobbe



--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on
Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee -
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/

Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 23:04:27 UTC