[wbs] response to 'EOWG Call for Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'EOWG Call for
Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1' (Education and Outreach Working Group)
for Judy Brewer.



---------------------------------
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.



 * ( ) Prefer community
 * (x) Prefer public
 * ( ) No preference

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
"Public" is an accurate description of W3C process. 

"Community" might sound like an in-group that some people are not part of.




---------------------------------
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...: [ 4 ++++ ] 
 * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ No opinion
] 
 * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render
adjacent links distinctly...: [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
10.5 was considered particularly heinous by some people, so this is a good
example.




---------------------------------
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): 
1. priority: editor's discretion
slide number and title: overview page (sorry, already completed that
survey before I downloaded this)
current wording:
suggested revision: please indicate file size of downloads before link to
download
rationale: to minimize surprise at large files

2. priority: important
slide number and title: 7: Who Develops WCAG
current wording: "The standards making body for the Web"
suggested revision: "The leading standards body for the Web"
rationale: it is not the only one.

3. priority: editor's discretion
slide number and title: 13: milestones
current wording: curvy arrow
suggested revision: do something else
rationale: arrow looks odd

4. priority: important
slide number and title: 25: More Design Flexibility
current wording: too much text
suggested revision: reduce text
rationale: till then the presentation flows well, but the dense text on
this slide interrupts reader's progress

5. priority: editor's discretion
slide number and title: 35 Changes over time
current wording: lots of text
suggested revision: I tihnk you're going to reduce this from 3 to 2
examples, right? I'd support that.
rationale: more readable

[will need to send further comments later]




These answers were last modified on 31 August 2007 at 05:22:59 U.T.C.
by Judy Brewer

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 Friday, 31 August 2007 05:25:04 UTC