WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

Name: Shawn Henry
Email: shawn@w3.org
Affiliation: W3C WAI
Document: W2
Item Number: mapping
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Editorial suggestions

Proposed Change:
note: some similar suggestions for other appendices and so any changes should be synched



suggestion: Use “Informative” rather than “Non-Normative” and link “informative” to the glossary definition. Consider deleting one of them – either from the <h1> or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to “Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 is informative.”



suggestion: within table, align top (note with my configuration (Opera at 150%) I see nothing in the left column at the top of the first table)



suggestion: combine “New Level 1 requirements in WCAG 2.0 not mapped above”, “New Level 2…” and “New Level 3…” into “WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria not mapped above” (already have the level at the end of each success criteria) (rationale: groups information better by topic instead of splitting topics across multiple sections) 



suggestion: Change column heading “WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria” to “WCAG 2.0” since that column includes some techniques and other info



suggestion: capitalize “Checkpoints” in headings (including <h1>)



suggestion: consider putting the referenced terms in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design) consider using standard link colours for terms



suggestion: consider putting the success criteria numbers in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design)



suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \"Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0\" repetitive with <h1> and links to self) 



question: should the <title> and the <h1> match, or be more similar?

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2006 21:07:02 UTC