- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:32:01 +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 Liam McGee. --------------------------------- Version ---- Which version are these comments for? The version date is on Slide 2. * ( ) 27 August 2007 * (x) Latest: 31 August --------------------------------- Acceptance of WCAG 2.0 Presentation ---- 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 * (x) 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): Priority: High Slide number: 27, 29, 30, 45,61, 65 Issue: There are empty 'click to add outline' elements in OpenOffice Impress. Priority: [editor's discretion] Slide number: 8 suggested revision: put in some killer stats -- how many people have collaborated to date on WCAG2? How many comments were received on each working draft so far? Priority: [editor's discretion] General: Can the word doc be made smaller? 22Mb is rather large. Priority: [editor's discretion] Slide number: 14 Note: The 'working draft' text on preceding slides has changed to 'public working draft' - intentional? Otherwise, great! --------------------------------- SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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 * ( ) Prefer public * ( ) No preference Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): --------------------------------- SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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): --------------------------------- SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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...: [ No opinion ] * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ No opinion ] * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly...: [ No opinion ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 4 September 2007 at 12:25:15 U.T.C. by Liam McGee 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 Tuesday, 4 September 2007 12:32:05 UTC