- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:02:01 +0000
- To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for Sylvie Duchateau. --------------------------------- Version ---- Which version are these comments for? The version date is on Slide 2. * (x) 27 August 2007 --------------------------------- Community or Public ---- First, a relatively easy question:The presentation talks about "Community|Public review, comments, and feedback..." and "Providing adequate time for community|public review," on Slide 8, Slide 9 Notes, and Slide 11 Notes. Do you prefer "community" or "public" for these? Use the comment field for any explanations. * (x) Prefer community * ( ) Prefer public * ( ) No preference Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Public is the contrary of private, and it remains a general word. Community refers to a group of people working on the same field, the Web community. So this word may be less broad than public which is a very general term. The web community is the group that works on the Web. The public can be the Web community but also people who do not know anything about the Web, like web site clients or readers. At last, my preference for community is a question of feeling, it sounds better. --------------------------------- Example of WCAG 2.0 providing more design flexibility ---- Slide 28 has the following examples of how WCAG 2.0 provides more flexibility for design: * WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 7.1: Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]WCAG 2.0 allows more movement within defined parameters * WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.6: Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3]WCAG 2.0 allows more flexibility in meeting the corresponding success criteria: Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages Are these good examples? Are they clear and strong? Please rate each from the drop-down list. What would be another clear, strong example? Please put it in the Comments field. * Checkpoint 7.1 -- WCAG 2.0 allows more movement: [ No opinion ] * Checkpoint 13.6 -- WCAG 2.0 lists more techniques : [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Example of WCAG 1.0 user agent clause that's no longer an issue ---- For Slide 35 we want to give an example or two of things that were required in WCAG 1.0 that are no longer issues due to developments in technologies. Ideas: * 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. Are these good examples? Are they clear and strong? Please rate each from the drop-down list. What would be another clear, strong example? Please put it in the Comments field. * 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links...: [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ 4 ++++ ] * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly...: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- Acceptance of WCAG 2.0 Presentation Directive Overview ---- Based on the current version, please answer below. Note that you can change your answer; for example, if there are edits later. * ( ) I accept this version of the document as is * ( ) I accept this version of the document, and suggest changes below * ( ) I accept this version of the document only if the changes below are implemented * ( ) I do not accept this version of the document because of the comments below * ( ) I abstain (not vote) --------------------------------- Comments ---- Comments on the document, formatted as described above. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 30 August 2007 at 13:57:08 U.T.C. by Sylvie Duchateau Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/wcag20pres-easy1/ until 2007-09-05. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 14:02:03 UTC