- From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:25:03 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Name: Wendy Chisholm Email: chisholm.wendy@gmail.com Affiliation: Document: W2 Item Number: (none selected) Part of Item: Comment Type: general comment Summary of Issue: WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): Overall, I think this draft is good (caveat: I only reviewed the Level A SC). I am disappointed by the lack of a Level A success criterion for liquid layout (1.4.4), but I do not think that should stop the document from moving forward. I evaluated a real-world site with multimedia, images, forms, scripting (including a change of context on focus), timing, non-accessibility supported technologies, and a tag cloud where font size has meaning. The evaluation put each Level A success criteria to the test. While I had to dig through many situations and techniques to fully understand some of the success criteria, ultimately I was able to understand almost everything (only a little confusion on 1.1.1 and conformance - see my other comments). While the site that I evaluated failed several of these criteria, I was able to suggest specific fixes that would allow the site to claim Level A conformance - and more importantly - increase its accessibility to people with disabilities. I believe that WCAG 2.0 should advance to Candidate Recommendation. Proposed Change:
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 00:25:09 UTC