Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Shawn Henry ,

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/20060622210412.1987966364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-961)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Editorial suggestions

Proposed Change:

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

suggestion: unbold \"Note:\" and \"Example:\" (rationale: with them
bold my eye is drawn from the bold term to the bold Note or Example,
bypassing the actual definition. also makes it harder to skim the
terms )

suggestion: remove the numbers from the notes and examples -- e.g.,
instead of \"Note 1:\", \"Note 2:\", \"Note 3:\" just have \"Note:\",
\"Note:\", Note:\".. (rationale: simplifies, makes more friendly and
less engineering-like and formal)

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 removing [brackets] from references. (rationale:
simplifies visual design. also some people will not know what the
brackets mean and will waste cognitive processing trying to figure it
out.)

suggestion: Consider deleting one of the "normative"s -- from the
: \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" or from the first sentence:
"This section is normative." If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix A: Glossary is normative." suggestion: clean up top matter
(\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \"Appendix A: Glossary
(Normative)\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

suggestion: unbold \"Note:\" and \"Example:\" (rationale: with them
bold my eye is drawn from the bold term to the bold Note or Example,
bypassing the actual definition. also makes it harder to skim the
terms )

response: We have unbolded both "Note:" and "Example:" throughout.

suggestion: remove the numbers from the notes and examples -- e.g.,
instead of \"Note 1:\", \"Note 2:\", \"Note 3:\" just have \"Note:\",
\"Note:\", Note:\".. (rationale: simplifies, makes more friendly and
less engineering-like and formal)

response: Numbering notes is a common practice within standards and
makes them easier to reference, so we have decided to keep the
numbers. Note that the numbering only appears when multiple notes are
present.

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

response: We have removed the italics from the terms, but have
retained the link colors to make it easier to differentiate between
links to the glossary and links to other locations.

suggestion: consider removing [brackets] from references. (rationale:
simplifies visual design. also some people will not know what the
brackets mean and will waste cognitive processing trying to figure it
out.)

response: We have removed the square brackets from the links to "How
to Meet" at the end of each success criterion. However, the use of
square brackets  for references (links to the references appendix) is
part of the W3C style (http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References).

suggestion: Consider deleting one of the "normative"s -- from the
: \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" or from the first sentence:
"This section is normative." If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix A: Glossary is normative." response: We have removed the
parentheticals "(Informative)" and "(Non-Normative)" from the
appendices and have replaced occurrences of non-normative with
informative throughout. We have also included links to the glossary
definition of informative in the glossary where appropriate.
suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\"
extraneous? \"Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar? response: The guidelines are no longer
split into multiple pages, so the quick TOC and variations between
are no longer an issue.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210529.6F97966364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-962)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Editorial suggestions

Proposed Change:

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

suggestion: Edit first paragraph -- will help with specific
suggestions – e.g., "The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
Checklist serves as an appendix to Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 [WCAG20]" is unnecessary given the title; explain where
the "[How to meet]" links go. Keep in mind that this page will be
pointed to, printed, and used as a separate document. Add pointer to
Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20 (which will
explain "For many readers, the Checklist provides a quick reference
and overview to the information in WCAG 2.0." and so probably delete
it here.)

suggestion: Use "Informative" rather than "Non-Normative" and link
"informative" to the glossary definition. Consider deleting one of
them – either from the
or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix B: Checklist is informative." suggestion: within table,
align top (note with my configuration (Opera at 150%) I see nothing in
the first 2 columns at the top of the first table) suggestion: remove
hover colour (rationale: adds unnecessary complexity, complicates
colour coding because highlight colour is same at Level 2 colour)
note: in Opera 8.5 Windows the entire row is highlighted suggestion:
put a column heading on the first column ("Level") and underneath it
use either "Level #" or just "#" (rather than current "L#")
suggestion: remove line under Guideline (rationale: adds visual
complexity, unnecessary since all that is under it is table)
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) question: why not include [Understanding]
links for the guidelines? suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick
Table of Contents\" extraneous? \" Appendix B: Checklist" repetitive
with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The checklist has been removed from the WCAG 2.0 appendices. However,
a number of the issues raised here have been addressed in responses to
suggestions made in other issues. We have also added "Understanding
Guideline X.X" links to the guidelines.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210412.1987966364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-966)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for 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
or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix C: Acknowledgements is informative." suggestion: remove
"C.1" and "C.2" from the
s (rationale: simpler, friendlier, less formal) suggestion: clean up
top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \" Appendix C:
Acknowledgements\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar? question: should WCAG WG be spelled out?
(yes, if consider this separate document, no if consider this a
section of large document where it is spelled out in first reference)
suggestion: consider linking WCAG WG to www.w3.org.WAI/GL/

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

suggestion: Use "Informative" rather than "Non-Normative" and link
"informative" to the glossary definition. Consider deleting one of
them – either from the
or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix C: Acknowledgements is informative." response: We have
removed the parentheticals "(Informative)" and "(Non-Normative)" from
the appendices and have replaced occurrences of non-normative with
informative throughout. We have also included links to the glossary
definition of informative in the glossary where appropriate.
suggestion: remove "C.1" and "C.2" from the
s (rationale: simpler, friendlier, less formal) response: We have
removed the heading numbering for the appendices. suggestion: clean up
top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \" Appendix C:
Acknowledgements\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar? response: The guidelines are no longer
split into multiple pages, so the quick TOC and variations between
are no longer an issue. question: should WCAG WG be spelled out? (yes,
if consider this separate document, no if consider this a section of
large document where it is spelled out in first reference) suggestion:
consider linking WCAG WG to www.w3.org.WAI/GL/ response: We have added
a paragraph to this appendix that both spells out the acronym and
links to the working group's home page.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210659.C3CF266364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-967)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for 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
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
) 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
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The mapping has been removed form the WCAG document itself. Since you
and the EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force will be involved in
the creation of transition materials, we are forwarding your comment
back to you for consideration in future versions of the mapping.
Thanks for taking this on.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622210753.EE5A666364@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-970)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: editorial
Comment (including rationale for 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
or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix E: References is informative." suggestion: clean up top
matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\" extraneous? \" Appendix E:
References\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar? question: WCAG20 reference is circular. not
sure why it's there?

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

suggestion: Use "Informative" rather than "Non-Normative" and link
"informative" to the glossary definition. Consider deleting one of
them – either from the
or from the first sentence. If leave first sentence, change to
"Appendix E: References is informative." response: We have removed the
parentheticals "(Informative)" and "(Non-Normative)" from the
appendices and have replaced occurrences of non-normative with
informative throughout. We have also included links to the glossary
definition of informative in the glossary where appropriate.
suggestion: clean up top matter (\"Quick Table of Contents\"
extraneous? \" Appendix E: References\" repetitive with
and links to self) question: should the
match, or be more similar? response: The guidelines are no longer
split into multiple pages, so the quick TOC and variations between
are no longer an issue. question: WCAG20 reference is circular. not
sure why it's there? response: We have removed this reference.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060622213825.C5E5033201@kearny.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-987)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Organizing by WCAG 1.0 Priorities makes it quite difficult to process
the information. Topics (such as forms, tables) are split across
different sections and tables. Checkpoints are not in order.

If it was organized as in WCAG 1.0 (that is, numerically), it would be
much easier to both understand the differences in how topics are
addressed, and to find individual checkpoints.


Proposed Change:

Organize as is in WCAG 1.0, that is, numerically, rather than grouping
by priorities.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The mapping has been removed from the WCAG document itself. Since you
and the EOWG WCAG 2.0 Materials Support Task Force will be involved in
the creation of transition materials, we are forwarding your comment
back to you for use in future versions of the mapping.
Thanks for taking this on.

----------------------------------------------------------
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 "shortnames" 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 shortnames/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 shortnames/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.

----------------------------------------------------------
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.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 9:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060623034602.688D8DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-1011)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Editorial suggestions for http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html

Proposed Change:


Consider:
* Move
before the Contents list * Delete "WCAG 2.0 Guidelines" at the top,
which links to itself and is redundant with
* Remove line under from "Quick Table of Contents" and change to
something like "Page Contents" * In "This section is normative."
sentence, link "normative" to glossary definition. * Re-consider this
in relationship with http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html
* When there are no Success Criteria at a level, combine the current
heading and sentence into a single heading, e.g.: instead of:
Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1

(No level 2 success criteria for this guideline.) have:
(No Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1) * Put "See also" links
in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design).
(example: "For multimedia, see also Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized
alternatives for multimedia.") * Consider putting the referenced terms
in regular font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design).
consider using standard link colours for terms * Consider putting the
success criteria numbers in regular font style, not italic (rationale:
simplify visual design)

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

* Move
before the Contents list * Delete "WCAG 2.0 Guidelines" at the top,
which links to itself and is redundant with
* Remove line under from "Quick Table of Contents" and change to
something like "Page Contents" * Re-consider this
in relationship with http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/Overview.html
response: The guidelines are no longer split into multiple pages, so
the quick TOC and related comments above are no longer an issue. * In
"This section is normative." sentence, link "normative" to glossary
definition. response: We have added the link as proposed. * When there
are no Success Criteria at a level, combine the current heading and
sentence into a single heading, e.g.: instead of:
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1

(No level AA success criteria for this guideline.) have:
(No Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1) resposne: We have removed the
for empty level AA and AAA sections and replaced with "(No Level X SC
for GL X.X)." The reason for not including these as headers was to
avoid situations where users would could navigate to headers which
contained no content. * Put "See also" links in regular font style,
not italic (rationale: simplify visual design). (example: "For
multimedia, see also Guideline 1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives
for multimedia.") response: We have removed the italics from these
references. * Consider putting the referenced terms in regular font
style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design). consider using
standard link colours for terms response: We have removed the italics
from the terms, but have retained the link colors to make it easier to
differentiate between links to the glossary and links to other
locations. * Consider putting the success criteria numbers in regular
font style, not italic (rationale: simplify visual design) response:
We have removed the italics for the SC numbers and handles.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10:

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

Part of Item:
Comment Type: general comment
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Suggest re-focusing documents

Proposed Change:


Rough thoughts on content and positioning of the different WCAG 2.0
documents and change suggestions below (revised somewhat since <
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0091.html>).
Note: Some of the changes below have already been discussed within the
WCAG WG and are planned, and some are my own ideas that have not yet
been discussed and are likely to continue to evolve.
High level summary:
- Take all but the minimum out of the /TR/WCAG20 pages, especially
moving out a lot of the text from Introduction and Conformance, and
moving Checklist and Comparison ("mapping") Appendices
- Make /TR/WCAG20 the formal reference only, and direct all
informative pointers to the Overview doc, and from there to the UI
(next point)
- Create a user interface (UI) to access the "atoms" of Understanding
and Techniques as needed, rather than the primary interaction being
through /TR/WCAG20 to the middle of a large docs
Details:
1. /TR/WCAG20: Purpose is formal Technical Specification/W3C
Recommendation/Standard that is stable and referenceable. Keep it as
simple and succinct as possible. Include only the minimum needed for
the actual technical specification. Clearly point to other documents
for important information, such as more info on baseline.
Note: Encourage all general references to WCAG to go to the Overview
doc , and only formal references in policies and such to point to
/TR/WCAG20 (and there to also point to the Overview doc as
informative).
Changes & Rationale:

The main change I suggest is moving out of the main /TR/WCAG20
Introduction and Conformance pages the Comparison with WCAG 1.0,
explanatory examples, and other details. In addition to simplifying
the normative doc, this puts the explanatory information where it can
be updated to reflect changes over time as necessary. It also limits
the need for repetition across documents (e.g., now some information
in /TR/WCAG20 Conformance is repeated in About Baselines). I think it
also would ensure that people don’t miss important information
(since it becomes clear that the /TR/WCAG20 only contains the
standards, and all other info is in Understanding).

* Move all information explanatory information not necessary for the
technical specification, such as what is listed under “Based on
above, I propose moving the following sections out of /TR/WCAG20
Conformance:” in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0091.html

* Move “Appendix B: Checklist”. Now that the guidelines are so
nicely free of extraneous information (i.e., moved extra information
that was within the guidelines themselves in WCAG 1.0 to
“Understanding 2.0”), this checklist is not needed as part of
/TR/WCAG20. Now http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixB.html pretty much
equals http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html and is therefore
redundant. (See more with #@@ below)

* Move “Appendix D: Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG
2.0” from the formal /TR/WCAG20 doc and make it a supporting doc.
(See above for rationale, including that it can be more easily edited
if outside of the /TR/WCAG20 Recommendation.)

2. Overview : Purpose is clear, friendly, directive intro and map to
WCAG 2.0 docs.

Note: Encourage all general references to WCAG to point to the
Overview doc www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20 (and only formal references
in policies and such to point to /TR/WCAG20).

Changes:

* Edit to be more effective in this purpose. (Action, Shawn)

3. WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/: List of
requirements and techniques, customizable to make as short and focused
as needed for specific situations. This may evolve into the primary
tool/doc that most people use most of the time as the main page to
WCAG 2.0 information.

Changes:

* Consider additional customization options, such “[ ] Show Common
Failures” to be able to turn them off and shorten the doc.

* Perhaps design this to also replace the Checklist, e.g. by adding:

[ ] Show Techniques

[ ] Include Comment column and checkbox

* Evaluate usability for possible UI improvements.

4. [Checklist ]: Purpose is quick list for people who already know
WCAG 2.0 and want a short list to check off that they’re remembering
everything when doing an evaluation, for example. [Other common uses?]

Changes & Rationale:

See under #1 about it being redundant with
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html. The WCAG 1.0 Checklist
was very useful as a quick reference and overview of 1.0 guidelines
for newbies. This WCAG 2.0 Checklist is not. We already made a Quick
Reference, and we might make something for newbies.

I wonder if we want to provide this 2.0 Checklist at all? Perhaps the
benefit some people will get from it is not worth the complication of
having yet another WCAG 2.0 document? If we do keep it, I think it
should be carefully positioned for what it is and what it is not, and
not detract from the other documents that might meet most needs
better.

5. “Understanding” [or other title]: Purpose is to provide details
for people who want to understand the guidelines in depth.

Changes & Rationale:

* Consider changing title. (I think others have provided rationale and
suggestions.)

* Move into this document details on Conformance and Baseline.

* Add brief explanations of the Principles.

* Add pointer to Overview doc near front.

* Develop UI that lets people easily get the “atoms” of info that
they want at a time, and navigate between atoms here, from Techniques,
and other related documents as appropriate.

6. Techniques: Purpose is details for implementing. Developers are the
main target audience.

Changes:

* Develop UI that lets people easily get the “atoms” of info that
they want at a time, and navigate between atoms here, from
Understanding, and other related documents as appropriate.



7. [Application Notes] Purpose is to help developers working on a
specific thing, such as images, links, forms, data tables. (Brief
description is under http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php#related)
Note that I think these should cover just the basics, and point back
to “Understanding” & “Techniques” for the more complex issues.



8. [Web Accessibility Basics] (document not yet defined) Purpose would
be for the average Web developer to be able to understand the basics
of Web accessibility under WCAG 2.0. An easy-to-understand list of
what one needs to do for a simple site with HTML and CSS.

(Acknowledge that this would have to be very carefully and clearly
positioned, since it would not cover all the issues.)

9. [Quick Tips] Purpose is something short that touches on the basics
to help people get started on accessibility â€" to fit on a
business-card-sized handout.

10. [About Baselines]: Eliminate this document. Put the pertinent
information about baselines in “Understanding”, as there’s no
reason to send people to yet another document for this information.
The non-pertinent info that’s there now could go in 11 below.

11. [something like Background, or WG Notes, or History, or FAQ,
or…]: Purpose is to communicate reasons why things were done,
address some concerns or issues, and such. For example, from About
Baselines move to here most of the “Background” section and “Why
wasn\'t UAAG used as baseline?”.

12. [Transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0] (document not yet defined)
Not sure if a single document, or series of documents?

Changes:

* Move “Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0” from
/TR/WCAG20 appendix to here

* Move why 2.0 Levels different from 1.0 Priorities (currently in
WCAG20 Conformance) to here

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We believe we have substantially addressed these issues with revisions
to the introduction, conformance section, and appendices.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:44:02 UTC