- From: Carol Smith <carol@kognitive.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500
- To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
- In general, is the new organization easier to understand? Yes - this document is very well organized and overall very easy to understand. - Are success criteria at the right conformance level? Yes - except where noted below. - Are success criteria accurately worded? Are they understandable? Yes - except where noted. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/ - In general, does this document help you understand what WCAG 2.0 is, and how to use it? Yes - it is helpful. However, I would add a section on using this document - there are many sections for each area and a lot of reading/scrolling needs to be done to actually get to the technique. Describe that each entry has Key Terms, Intent and then Techniques, followed by Benefits, Examples and Related Resources. Common Failures area is nice! The TOC is extremely long, but not really helpful. I would expect frequent users of the document would probably want to jump straight to the techniques - maybe have a shorter TOC on this page with a link to a longer one? Not sure if that would help. Especially since they could jump to it from the Guidelines themselves which they would probably do most of the time. Rename the Situations title to be Technique A, Technique B, as the term situation is very similar to example which could be confusing. - Does this document adequately clarify each success criterion? Yes - the breakdown of Key Terms, Intent, etc. greatly helps orient the user. Comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html Conformance Note: Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and others do not contain level 2 success criteria. >>Not all contain level 3 success criteria either - I would add this to the sentence. Comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html 1.2.1 Editorial Note >>I think it is a good idea to change to this version as it should encourage at least a minimal level of accessibility vs. people not trying at all. Same for 1.2.2 2.3.1 When content violates either the general flash threshold or thered flash threshold, users are warned in a way that they can avoid it. >>Add a space between the and red. 2.4.2 Unclear meaning because of use of "delivery unit." Repeat the wording on 2.4.7 "When a page or other delivery unit is" for each section where the term "delivery unit" is used. 3.1.5 2. Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order to use the content. >>This is in a different voice than the other two items. Recommend changing to: "Graphical illustrations of concepts or processes that can be easily understood." or something else that doesn't make it a "must" since the other's are not. Comments on: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html Delivery Unit (same issue as # 1721) >>Add an example to the definition to make it more clear. This would help clarify some of the 2.4 Success Criteria. Thank you for considering my comments. Carol J. Smith carol@kognitive.com
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 14:38:11 UTC