[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
 * ( ) 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
 * ( ) 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]

[further comments submitted on updated version of presentation as
available as of wednesday sept 6]

page 8, embedded qu for me: WCAG includes... and people with disabilities

page 12 and 13: even with the layout description, this is still visually 
confusing to have the blank bullets. I suggest that another method would
work better.

page 18: note to presenters (at bottom of page) runs off of bottom of page

page 23: "remember that some success criteria still need human
evaluation..." I think it's clearer without "still" here, since with
"still" it sounds as though the need for human evaluation is only
temporary, whereas this will always be the case.

page 24 & on for a bit: several of the slides here have notes that overrun
the bottom of the page, and it is tricky to try to view them; therefore I
haven't been able to review them well.

page 27: typo at "less restrictive that 1.0" should be "than"

page 35: "Accessibility-supported technologies addresses that for WCAG
2.0." Hard to parse, and not sure what it means.

page 42, 43: the layout descriptions help, but might benefit from
additional tweaking

page 46: I like this style of photos/illustrations, but feel that it needs
some racial diversity

page 50: Rather than starting with "One of the issues with WCAG 1.0..."
which sounds ominously negative, I think it is more straightforward to
just say "When WCAG 1.0 came out in 1999, ..."
 
page 52: If there were a way to get to the Quick Reference earlier in the
presentation, I think that would be very beneficial. Having it so far into
the presentation means that some people may never make it here, even if
they try to shorten the presentation somewhat.

page 55 & 56: Notes run off of bottom of page and are difficult to access
for purpose of reviewing slides.

page 59: wcag not equal to accessibility -- I think that this sends the
wrong message.

page 63: or what are generically called user agents

page 73: "Finally, note that this presentation is based on..." The voice
is ambiguous here -- first it sounds like a note from you to the
presenter, but I think it's from presenter to the world?

request for an overall discussion question: are there any ways that the
presentation can be shortened? I think that that would increase the
likelihood that it be used.

Overall, looking great.

Thanks, 

- Judy

 






---------------------------------
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
 * (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.




---------------------------------
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...: [ 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.


These answers were last modified on 6 September 2007 at 05:11:29 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 Thursday, 6 September 2007 05:17:07 UTC