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

WCAG 2.0 checklist comments - editorial

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:18:54 +1000
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ss9e5svnwxe0ny@widsith.local>

4. This is the first public Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 Checklist.  While we  
to provide a printable version and group Success Criteria by Level,
is the information presented clearly? Is this format an effective tool to  
determine conformance to WCAG 2.0?
]]] - http://www.w3.org/mid/

The linear [0] version is easier to read than the table [1], simply  
because it provides some meaningful headers.

"1.3 L2 SC3" is somewhat off-putting as a heading - having the text  
expanded to real words would make it easier to read. It may also be worth  
numbering all success criteria sequentially, from 1 to 333 (or however  
many there finally are), as is done with teh requirements and good  
practices in QA's SpecGL [2].

Having used several tools designed to help with evaluation, and in  
particular Hera, which takes a similar approach to providing a complete  
checklist, I think that the format is a reasonably helpful one. Making it  
more compact would be a lot better for frequent use, and making it  
actually generate a basic EARL report would be even more valuable. But  
these are both functions that tool developers can manage for themselves.

Review of the technical detail will take a little longer :-)



[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20050630/checklist-linear
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20050630/checklist
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-qaframe-spec-20050629/

Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Saturday, 2 July 2005 00:19:17 UTC

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