W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:32:38 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0712111532s4b01986cg1b8a449cf8fb389a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shawn Henry" <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

We considered your proposal to add the Principles to the Table of
Contents, but feel it would be more confusing.

Because the Understanding document has been separated into sections,
adding the principles wouldn't fit into the document and we feel the
table of contents should reflect the contents of the actual document.


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 1: LC-992, LC-1000: organizational comments on guidelines
> Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0326.html
> (Issue ID: 2181)
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> LC-992:
> The addition of short handles on the success criteria and principles
> is excellent. I still recommend them for the guidelines as well, for
> the same reasons stated previously.
> LC-1000:
> My proposed change had three points. The first was: "Leave the
> Principles as they are in /TR/WCAG20. Remove the first numbering from
> all guidelines and success criteria..." I'm not sure I agree with your
> response to that point; however, I am quite willing to accept the
> decision of the Working Group, especially since you added short
> handles that make referencing the success criteria in informal
> communication so much easier and reducing the need to use the numbers
> for common reference.
> I don't see a response to my other two points:
> * Add the Principles into "Understanding". - I see that there is now a
> "Understanding the Four Principles of Accessibility" section in the
> Understanding doc, and I don't think it make sense to add them as
> headings throughout the doc. Therefore, I think this comment is
> addressed.
> * Consider including the Principles in the Quick Ref and Checklist. -
> I think it would probably be best to have the Principles in the Quick
> Reference. However, I haven't done enough work with users yet to have
> a good idea of the issues for and against having the Principles there.
> In order to simplify overall comment processing (for me and you), I
> will open a new comment on the Quick Reference, and you can close this
> one.
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> We have now created Handles for the Guidelines as well.
> Shawn: Great!
> We have shortened the introduction considerably and moved the
> principles discussion to the Understanding Document.  We have also
> edited the principles in response to a wide range of comments.
> Shawn: Great!
> We did not add the principles to the Quick Reference because, on
> investigation, we found it added more complexity to the document than
> we want to have.
> Shawn: EOWG discussed this and generally agree that while it would be nice to have the Principles in the Quick Reference (some people felt very strongly about this and others not as much), it is not worth adding another heading level. A compromise suggestion we came up with is adding the Principles in the table of contents only (not linked of course).
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 23:32:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC