- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:54 +0900
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> But it would be good to understand the why and what of WAI's new approach
> here, and either confirm or modify our own approach.
>
> Do you want to pursue #1 below ("why")?
I'm currently having a look at WCAG2 (even though I don't think I'll have
time for a full evaluation wrt SpecGL), I think I'll get in touch with
the WCAG group and discuss this with them.
One interesting thing I have already noticed is the big difference in
the checkpoints between v1 and 2:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/2002/08/20-mapping.html
Much fewer checkpoints, much more concise, no example whatsoever (all
moved to the examples documents, etc).
One issue raised in this document states:
"In many cases, several WCAG 1.0 checkpoints of varying priority levels
map to a single WCAG 2.0 checkpoint. How should we resolve the
difference? Could this imply that we only prioritize at the
technology-specific level?"
Note that their approach for GL/ET has changed too, they now use three
levels: [ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#how-to ]
1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Checkpoints
2 - Technology-specific Checklists
3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information
What I find really interesting is that 2) and 3) are not big documents
including examples and techniques from different sources, but rather
bindings for/to specific technologies. Something worth discussing too?
--
Olivier Thereaux - W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:17:57 UTC