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

RE: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Jason Gottshall <jgottshall@capwiz.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:53:23 -0400
Message-ID: <0676A75925636E4A857B0D04FDAB7DBA0101453C@CAEX.hq.capwiz.com>
To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>

The draft seems to be substantially clearer and more usable now. Thank
you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:36 PM
> To: Jason Gottshall
> Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> Subject: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006
> 
> Dear Jason Gottshall ,
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the
> interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
> 
> We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
> constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
> us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
> until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.
> 
> This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions
> to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of
> your original comment on
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
> also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
> Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/.
> 
> PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
> us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are
> satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly
> archived.
> 
> We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
> Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
> and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
> issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 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:
> 
> Source: 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/37C02BA0C03A6C46B81E07135754B8A803BF27BD
> @cadc.hq.capwiz.com
> (Issue ID: LC-658)
> 
> As a web developer who has not yet begun implementing accessibility
> standards, I'm confused and daunted by the current proposed WCAG 2.0
> standard. From what I have read so far, it is at times incomplete,
> contradictory, and meaningless. I can't even begin to explain what's
> wrong, because I can't even begin to understand what's right.
> 
> Please take some more time to re-evaluate this document. 
> Don't give us a
> standard we can't use.
> 
> Jason Gottshall
> Developer
> Knowlegis.net
> 
> --
> Jason Gottshall
> jgottshall@capitoladvantage.com
> 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> 
> We have done an extensive rewrite of the guidelines with a focus on
> making them easier to understand and to remove any apparent conflicts.
> 
> We have also shortened and simplified them. Some of the things we have
> done include:
> 
> Easier language to understand
> - Wrote simpler guidelines
> - Removed as many technical terms (jargon) as possible replacing them
> with plainer language or, where possible, their definitions
> - Eliminated several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.)
> - Removed the term Baseline and replaced it with "web technologies
> that are accessibility supported" and then defined what it means to be
> accessibility supported.
> - Removed the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions
> that pointed to other definitions)
> - Tried to word things in manners that are more understandable to
> different levels of Web expertise
> - Added short names/handles on each success criterion to make them
> easier to find and compare etc.
> - Simplified the conformance
> 
> Shortening the document overall
> - Shortened the introduction
> - Moved much of the discussion out of the guidelines and put it in the
> Understanding WCAG 2.0 document
> - Shortened the conformance section and moved it after the guidelines
> - Moved mapping from WCAG 1 to a separate support document (so it can
> be updated more easily)
> 
> Creating a Quick Practitioner-oriented Summary / 
> Checklist-like document
> - Created a Quick Reference document that has just the Guidelines,
> success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria.
> 
> Hopefully, this new version will much better meet your needs.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 16:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC