WCAG 2.0 comments: Issue 460

Hello Tina,

Thank you for your comments on WCAG 2.0 [1].  This email shows how the WCAG 
WG has attempted to address one of your concerns.  We will send a separate 
email for each of the issues you raised. Please let us know if we have 
adequately addressed your issues.

Issue 460 [2]

Tina Holmboe writes:
        The document in itself is singularly lacking in clarity. The
        language is reminiscent of bureaucratese  and at times
        nonsensical. After working with accessibility since 1996, I
        find myself shocked by sentences such as
         "These are additional checkpoints that may be reported in addition
          to Core conformance if the Required Success Criteria for a given
          Extended Checkpoint are satisfied."
        This is difficult to understand, hard to sell, and very nearly
        impossible to follow when reviewing material. I am, personally, still
        not clear on the exact meaning of the above, and would be hard pressed
        to explain it to people who will decide on whether or not to comply
        with this standard.
        The draft must be cleared up, and the language taken to a point
        where it is actually understandable; less this becomes an exercise
        in futility.
===

The WCAG WG rewrote most of the Guidelines and success criteria in our 11 
March 2004 Working Draft [3].  While the nature of the beast is 
bureaucratic, we hope this draft is easier to follow.  If you are able and 
interested, we appreciate your feedback on our latest draft.

Thank you,
--wendy

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2003Aug/0003.html>
[2] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=460>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/#meaning>


-- wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 14:05:17 UTC