W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Extending Deadline on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Review [was: Fwd: Call for Rev...

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 17:10:36 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060526162041.01cf5700@localhost>
To: Ryonaitis@aol.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu, wendy@w3.org, caldwell@trace.wisc.edu

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your question.

Adding back the part on that from the extension notice, and then I'll add 
some more explanation:

>>1. The deadline for comments on the Last Call Working Draft only applies 
>>to the Guidelines document itself. The supporting documents 
>>("Understanding WCAG 2.0" and "Techniques for WCAG 2.0") do not have a 
>>deadline for comments, though you may find them helpful in understanding 
>>or implementing the provisions in the guidelines. We welcome comments on 
>>the supporting documents in addition to comments on the guidelines, but 
>>we encourage you to focus your attention on the relatively short 
>>guidelines document itself during the review period.

Your questions were:

>Should we be reviewing and commenting on the document as we have been 
>doing but none of the WCAG 2.0 supporting documents?

Your comments are welcome on any of the documents -- the Last Call Working 
Draft plus the supporting documents -- but the document for which comments 
are time-sensitive is the Last Call Working Draft.

>What are we reviewing for if not clarity of the document?

You can review it for a number of things: clarity of the wording; 
appropriateness of the requirements; priority of the requirements; 
feasibility; etc.

>Don't the supporting documents help us to understand the document?

Yes they do, which is why I said in the extension notice that you may find 
the supporting documents helpful in understanding or implementing the 
provisions in the guidelines. Let's say that you're reviewing & preparing 
comments on the Last Call Working Draft, and you find some success criteria 
that are hard to understand, or where you disagree with the requirement, or 
disagree with the priority level -- in those cases it could be important to 
check the relevant material in the supporting documents, since that would 
give you more information about how the Working Group thought that that 
success criteria could be achieved, or why they thought it was important. 
But if after reading the relevant material in the supporting document you 
still disagree with the provision, or the priority level, then the first 
place that we would need to fix it would be in the normative guidelines 
document. And if the problem in the guidelines document was insufficient 
clarity, then we need to get it clear in the normative guidelines document. 
Preparing constructive comments takes time, so we're encouraging reviewers 
to focus first on the guidelines document when preparing your comments. We 
still welcome your comments on the supporting documents now or later.

>Are there any other documents that may help us all to understand each 
>part/section of the document?

The "Understanding WCAG 2.0" is a pretty comprenhensive document that gives 
section by section info. But yes  at least three other documents may also 
be useful; all were mentioned in the review notice or the comments page:

- Overview for WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20/

- About Baselines and WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/

- Instructions for commenting on WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/
Note that there's a Q/A about commenting at the bottom of that page

>Perhaps there are some internal documents that can be made public that can 
>help as well? I truly appreciate any feedback you can share. I feel that I 
>personally may have been looking at the entirety of the WCAG 2.0 documents 
>and wasting much needed time!

If you want still more info, you can find all of the working documents for 
WCAG 2.0 in public space. Look at the working group home page, under 
"current work" which includes links to WCAG 2.0 issues lists and more:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#Current

I doubt that you've been wasting your time by reading the supporting 
documents, since it will have given you a lot more context. But when it 
comes to writing up the comments from your review, I'd suggest starting 
first with writing up your comments on the guidelines document itself.

The Working Group aimed for a normative document that was relatively lean 
yet that could be a definitive technical reference that is technology 
independent and testable, accompanied by more in-depth supporting resources 
that people could go to when they needed more information in a particular 
area. We plan to eventually have even more supporting resources -- for 
instance, "How to meet WCAG 2.0 using HTML" would provide a developer 
working primarily in HTML with a simpler document about meeting WCAG 2.0 in 
that technology. I hope that this gives you more of a picture of how the 
documents relate to each other, and how you might focus your review.

Let me know if you have more questions, and we look forward to your comments.

Regards,

- Judy

At 03:00 PM 5/26/2006 -0400, Ryonaitis@aol.com wrote:
>Hello All:
>
>I applaud the extension for comments especially with the summer holiday 
>season beginning. I have read the comments and have one simple question; I 
>apologize in advance if this has been previously asked.
>
>Your mail stated:
>
>"...but we encourage you  to focus your attention on the relatively short 
>guidelines document itself during the review period"
>
>I would appreciate your clarification. Should we be reviewing and 
>commenting on the document as we have been doing but none of the WCAG 2.0 
>supporting documents?
>
>What are we reviewing for if not clarity of the document? Don't the 
>supporting documents help us to understand the document? Are there any 
>other documents that may help us all to understand each part/section of 
>the document?
>
>Perhaps there are some internal documents that can be made public that can 
>help as well? I truly appreciate any feedback you can share. I feel that I 
>personally may have been looking at the entirety of the WCAG 2.0 documents 
>and wasting much needed time!
>
>Any recommendations or perhaps a review checklist would be great to help 
>my organization complete its review.
>
>Thank you in advance!
>
>Rob Yonaitis
>HiSoftware Company & W3C Member
>Founder & CTO

-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 21:13:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT