- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:29:28 -0700
- To: "Chris W" <chris@chrisw.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Chris W , 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/20060525223314.BA77B47B9F@mojo.w3.org (Issue ID: LC-644) Part of Item: Comment Type: GE Comment (including rationale for proposed change): To set the scene, I am your average garden-variety web developer. I am a simple soul, with college education, good English skills and above all, good HTML skills. I spend all day, every day, producing sites - for everything from the local dentist to the multi-million pound nation-wide high street chains. WCAG 2 has disappointed me. For a start, I just don\'t understand it. I am not stupid, but I just don\'t understand how it applies to what I build. How can I bear all that in mind when going through the stages of planning/building/testing a site? It\'s going to take months to combine that into my daily routine and to be honest I cannot see the commercial benefit. Most of the sites I build, I make them WCAG 1 level 2 accessible out of good practice and for good karma. I like it; I enjoy the sense of responsibility I get from it. It sets me apart from the monkeys knocking sites out in the back bedroom. WCAG 2 is so difficult, why would I bother? My customers do not care! If they do, then they will have to pay me a lot to have a compliant site, as the extra amount of time involved does not come for free. If WCAG 2 was actually simple - a simple to understand a plain-English check list (i.e. - do you use PDF, see page 3, if not continue to page 4 > checklist) along with highly automated checking system, then we are going to see a lot more developers producing compliant sites. Just dream…an internet with more and more compliant web sites. Is that not what we all want? Proposed Change: ---------------------------- Response from Working Group: ---------------------------- We have reworked the entire document to make it shorter and easier to read. This includes: - Shortening the introduction - Moving much of the discussion out of the guidelines and puttin it in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document - Shortening the conformance section and moving it after the guidelines - Writing simpler guidelines - Removing as many technical terms (jargon) as possible, replacing them with simpler language or their definitions - Removing the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions that pointed to other definitions) - Moving information about mapping between WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 to a separate support document (so it can be updated more easily) - Creating a Quick Reference documents that has just the Guidelines, success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria. - Trying to word things in manners that are more understandable to different levels of Web expertise - Adding short names/handles on each success criterion to make them easier to find and compare etc. - Simplifying the conformance section - Using plainer language wherever possible (e.g. – use "Web page" instead of "Web Unit") - Eliminating several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.) - Making the whole document much shorter.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:29:43 UTC