W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2005

WCAG 2.0 Comments

From: Carol Smith <carol@kognitive.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500
Message-ID: <2060b540512190637t6faf437dx9b3058d95af7c159@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:05 UTC