W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: comparing WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:09:03 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080602115748.043b6e60@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Hi Roger,

At 06:18 2/06/2008, Roger Hudson wrote:
>Hi
>
>I have prepared a document which I hope will help people who are 
>familiar with WCAG 1.0 to transfer the current knowledge and 
>practices across to WCAG 2.0. For example in WCAG 1.0, Checkpoint 
>3.5 requires header elements to be used correctly. Where is the 
>similar requirement in WCAG 2.0? Answer; Success Criteria 1.3.1 
>(Info and relationships), Technique H42: "Using h1-h6 to identify 
>headings" (and there is a link to the technique page).
>
>Comparing WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 is at http://wipa.org.au/papers/wcag-migration.htm
>
>This document is very much a work-in-progress and all suggestions 
>for how it might be improved will be appreciated.

Thanks for this.
I hope you are aware that the EO WG is also working on information 
about transitioning to WCAG 2.0;
see:
* [DRAFT] How to Transition Your Web Site from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0:
   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/transition1to2> and
* [DRAFT] Mapping WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints to WCAG 2.0:
   <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/06/05-mapping-draft.html>
   (this was an appendix in some previous drafts of WCAG 2.0).

What both WAI's mapping and your table have in common, is that WCAG 
1.0 is the first column, and WCAG 2.0 the second: the idea is to 
check what WCAG 2.0 success criteria (at any level) are already 
covered when a site meets WCAG 1.0 (at level X).
I wonder if this shouldn't be reversed. If a web developer wants to 
transition to WCAG 2.0, he/she may want to see e.g. all WCAG 2.0 
Level A requirements (his new goal) and then find the "gaps" in his 
current implementation by checking which of these requirements are 
not already covered by implementing WCAG 1.0. That should make it 
relatively easy to find out what additional work is still needed.

Does that make sense?

As Patrick Lauke pointed out, the current set of techniques is not 
exhaustive. The WCAG WG is still adding more techniques. In fact, the 
Techniques and Failures document is not on Recommendation track in 
order to facilitate updates after WCAG 2.0 becomes a recommendation.

Best regards,

Christophe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 10:09:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:27 GMT