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

WCAG WG,

Thanks for all of your hard work on WCAG 2.0.

> say whether you are satisfied with the decision taken.

I have additional follow up for a couple of the comments and responses, which are below preceded with "Reply:". 

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 7:
> 
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622221256.E0AF4BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-992)
> 
> Part of Item: Intent
> Comment Type: general comment
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> 
> It would be extremely useful to have an easy way to refer to specific
> guidelines and success criteria. Trying to refer to them by numbers or
> their long text is awkward. More importantly, it is a significant
> barrier to common Web developers being able to communicate about them,
> and it makes the guidelines even more esoteric.
> 
> I propose including "short names" or "handles" in the "Understanding"
> doc. I understand that it is quite difficult to do. I think it is OK
> for them to not be technically accurate, and instead make them easy
> and use common terminology, e.g.,:
> - "Alt-text" for "Guideline 1.1 : Provide text alternatives for all
> non-text content"
> - "Multimedia alternatives" for "Guideline 1.2 : Provide synchronized
> alternatives for multimedia"
> - "Separate content and presentation" for "Guideline 1.3 : Ensure that
> information and structure can be separated from presentation"
> - "Contrast" for "Guideline 1.4 : Make it easy to distinguish
> foreground information from its background"
> 
> I understand the concerns with short names/handles being used
> inappropriately; however, I think the benefits far outweigh the risks.
> 
> Also, I think that putting these in the "Understanding" doc and not
> the /TR/WCAG10 doc helps some with concerns about them not being
> insufficient to convey the full meaning of the long text.
> 
> 
> Proposed Change:
> 
> Include short names/handles for each guideline and success criteria
> (and principle while you're at it since those are easy :).
> 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> 
> We have included short handles in the draft to make the success
> criterion easier to reference.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------

Reply: 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.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 8:
> 
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623024709.A7E2C47BA1@mojo.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-1000)
> 
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: general comment
> Comment (including rationale for proposed change):
> 
> Consider dropping the top numbering level. Going from three numbering
> levels (1.1.1.) down to two (1.1.) would make the guidelines feel less
> complex and less "daunting" (quote from usability testing participant
> :).
> Add the Principles in the supporting documents, as they do provide
> nice framing and grouping for the guidelines.
> 
> 
> Proposed Change:
> 
> * Leave the Principles as they are in /TR/WCAG20. Remove the first
> numbering from all guidelines and success criteria, e.g.:
> - Guideline 1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content
> - Success Criteria 1.1 For all non-text content, one of the following is 
> true
> * Add the Principles into "Understanding"
> * Consider including the Principles in the Quick Ref and Checklist.
> 
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
> 
> The working group considered making this change to the numbering
> scheme. However, we felt that it is important to have a different
> numbering scheme between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 since both sets of
> guidelines are likely to be in use in various contexts at the same
> time.

Reply:

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.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 10:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623035607.D458133201@kearny.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-1014)
...

Reply: There are some aspects of my proposal that have not been fully addressed yet -- which I accept for now in the prioritization of focusing first on the technical content. In order to simplify overall comment processing, I am satisfied closing this comment, and I will submit new comments to cover open proposals.

> ----------------------------------------------------------

I am satisfied closing the comments below:
> Comment 1:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210412.1987966364@dolph.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-961)
> Comment 2:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210529.6F97966364@dolph.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-962)
> Comment 3:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210412.1987966364@dolph.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-966)
> Comment 4:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210659.C3CF266364@dolph.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-967)
> Comment 5:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210753.EE5A666364@dolph.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-970)
> Comment 6:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622213825.C5E5033201@kearny.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-987)
> Comment 9:
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034602.688D8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
> (Issue ID: LC-1011)

Thanks much!
~Shawn

Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 16:56:42 UTC