Re: Some edits to the WCAG2ICT draft

Andrea Snow-Weaver wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Reviewing the task force minutes and the draft this morning, I found a
> couple of things:
>
> Closed functionality:
> * for each of the SC listed in the appendix, there should be a link
> from our additional guidance section back to the introduction section
> on closed functionality. Something like "See the discussion on "Closed
> Functionality" in the Introduction."
I added a link to the end of the preamble paragraph. I didn't add it to
each of the bullets though, that seemed redundant. I can if you really want.
>
> Glossary: 
> * The "content" definition references back to the user agent
> discussion in Key Terms. Shouldn't this reference back to the content
> discussion?
Oops, copy paste error, fixed.
> * Move "input error" and "process" to the list of terms the TF hasn't
> finished discussing yet.
done
>
> Guidance on SC:
> * 1.4.2 typo: Change [and “any content” with “any part of non-web
> document
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#wcag2ict_documentdef> or software
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#wcag2ict_softwaredef>”.]
> to [and “any content” with “any part of a non-web document
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#wcag2ict_documentdef> or software
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20121126/#wcag2ict_softwaredef>”.]
done
> * 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 - please add a reference back to
> the discussion in Key Terms - set of documents.
I don't find a discussion on "set of documents" to point back to. They
already point back to the discussion on "document".
> * 2.4.1, 2.4.5, and 3.2.3 - WCAG did not approve our text for
> software, only the text for documents. Please replace with something
> like "/The WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet produced additional
> guidance for software for Success Criterion 2.4.1."/
done
> * 2.4.4 needs the substitution (i.e. "with these substitutions, it
> would read...")
Hmm, this one modifies the Intent from Understanding, not the SC itself.
It's not yet been the practice to show how the Understanding would
appear with the modified guidance. I can, but a few comments:

    * The Understanding is a lot longer than the SC, so the modified
      quote would be much bigger.
    * We might want to differentiate modified Understanding from
      modified SC. But there are already a lot of things we're trying to
      differentiate from each other, and each new thing magnifies
      complexity.
    * I haven't checked, perhaps there are other places we'd need to do
      the same thing if we decide to go there.

For the most part, modifications to Understanding are done by actual
modifications to Understanding - I'll publish an Editors' draft of
Understanding that has WCAG2ICT changes in it. In this particular case,
I guess the modification is one needed for WCAG2ICT but not one that
could be made into the WCAG version.
>
> Andi
>
>

-- 

Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>