RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

Test procedures are part of sufficient techniques and common failures.  I don’t think we plan to cover them.  If it help, maybe we can spell that out in the intro. -Alex

From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:32 PM
To: David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'
Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

Somewhere we should also note we have not looked at test procedures at all.

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 2:40 PM
To: 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'
Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

Hi Michael

As I skimmed through the notes on the Guidelines themselves stuck out. We’ve of course only worked on Success Criteria so far and not the overarching Guidelines... but I think some people may get confuse when they read:

“The WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet produced additional guidance for Guideline 1.1.”

There are Success Criteria under each guideline, and it reads as if there is no work done on any of the SCs in the Guideline ... how about this:

“The WCAG2ICT Task Force has not yet produced additional guidance for Guideline 1.1. (please see each Success Criteria for Guidance on the Success Criteria level)”

Or something like that.

Cheers
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
  "Enabling the Web"
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>

From: Michael Cooper [mailto:cooper@w3.org]
Sent: July-24-12 11:53 AM
To: WCAG2ICT
Subject: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

An editors' draft of WCAG2ICT is available in W3C space:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2012/WD-wcag2ict-20120726/


I have been working with the editorial team to refine the structure and presentation of this document. I expect to continue with some minor style enhancements but otherwise this document is substantially in the form I expect to publish Thursday.

A number of people agreed to review this draft, which I appreciate. I will need reviews within the next 24 hours, and I hope you don't find anything major, just tweaks. :) Some questions to help steer your review, in descending order of priority:

  1.  Does the WCAG2ICT content (under the headings "Additional Guidance when applying..." match the version that had consensus of the WCAG2ICT Task Force and the WCAG Working Group?
  2.  Is there any WCAG2ICT consensus content that is missing?
  3.  Do the quotes from Understanding WCAG 2.0 include the modifications raised by the task force and agreed to by the WCAG WG?
  4.  Do the quotes from Understanding and WCAG otherwise look ok?
     *   The biggest issue I could expect is that content that was deleted is still showing up, though I've tried to check for that.
     *   It is also possible that formatting from the original documents did not correctly carry through into this document.
  5.  Is the overall structure and semantics of this document easy to understand and follow (considering the content)? Feedback from screen reader users would be particularly helpful.
  6.  Do you have any input on the visual style? I can't apply all style suggestions because there are style rules for W3C formal publications, but within the framework have attempted to make the document easy to read or skim visually.
Michael
--

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/>