Technical comments-WCAG 2.0 June draft

Continued from  my comments of Aug 6, 2003
6. It appears that  there is a shift away from  accessibility for PWD to universal access in WCAG 2.0

Consider that:
i. Five WCAG 1.0 checkpoints including 3 P1  map to an extended   WCAG 2 checkpoint 4.2 

about declaring  technology/providing alternative content.
ii. WCAG2's  checkpoint 2.4about navigation mechanisms maps to 13 checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 

some of which are P1 and some are P2. Checkpoint 2.4 of WCAG 2 is categorized as extended 

and not  core.
iii. On the other hand, checkpoints 4.1 and 4.3 relating to language   in WCAG 1.0 now have 

become  core under  3.1 of WCAG 2.

7. I guess a developer or other user of WCAG 2 will be confused  if he has used WCAG 1. WCAG 

1.0 tells him that certain things are absolutely necessary for accessibility and  now WCAG 

2.0 relegates those as "extended" checkpoints. Then some that were regarded as only as 

desirable   for accessibility by WCAG 1.0 have suddenly become core in WCAG 2.0.
i. Five WCAG 1.0 checkpoints including 3 P1  map to an extended   WCAG 2 checkpoint 4.2 

about declaring  technology/providing alternative content.
ii. Five P2 checkpoints make a core 4.1 checkpoint on usage specs.
iii. One P1 and two P3 checkpoints make an extended checkpoint  3.3 under Wcag 2.0 on 

content complexity.
This has given rise to an inconsistency and the first unresolved issue stated on the page 

for 
"Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft"
That is why it is necessary for the document to say why some checkpoints are core and some 

are extended. (see my suggestion # 2 made earlier) 
While on the subject, the single A, double A and triple A conformance levels are primarily 

intended to aid developers on focussing on  more critical issues before tackling those that 

are only desirable as per WCAG, although  all checkpoints  enhance accessibility. Now WCAG 

has two categories core and extended instead of the three. These   will also  convey the 

same message to the developers: core are very important for accessibility and should be the 

focus of their attention. So this framework isnot a big change over A,AA,AAA or P1, P2, P3 

method of WCAG 1.0. So is WCAG 2.0   achieving a whole lot more by reducing the conformance 

levels from 3 to 2? And is it really a reduction when we consider that  Core+N may be 

another level one can claim?

8.  Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft 
There is a mismatch in  mapping the checkpoints for 4.2 and 4.3 of WCAG 2.0. All WCAG 1.0 

checkpoints mapped to 4.2 deal with providing "alternate versions of the content"are more 

appropriately mappable to 4.3 which reads:
Checkpoint: 4.3 [EXTENDED] Technologies used for presentation and user interface support 

accessibility or alternate versions of the content are provided. 

9. Unclear :  The checkpoint ref following every checkpoint  [was**].  Does it  refer to checkpoint ref under  earlier draft version of WCAG 2.0?  This should be clarified in the doc.
Thanks for your consideration. 
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc
11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
Fax: 703-225-0387
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *