Re: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

Thanks, this is why I wanted review. :) A mistake from copying and
pasting too quickly. Fixed. Michael

Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> GREAT catch. I missed this one.
>
> Michael, looks like the additional guidance for 3.2.4 got put under
> 3.2.3 in the draft. IOW, we have consensus, approved by WCAG for
> 3.2.4, but not for 3.2.3.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/3-understandable/32-make-web-pages-appear-and-operate-in-predictable-ways/323-consistent-navigation
> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/home/3-understandable/32-make-web-pages-appear-and-operate-in-predictable-ways/324-consistent-identification
>
> Andi
>
>
>
> Inactive hide details for Alex Li ---07/25/2012 02:08:47 PM---Michael,
> We don’t have anything to report on 3.2.3 yet. Can youAlex Li
> ---07/25/2012 02:08:47 PM---Michael, We don’t have anything to report
> on 3.2.3 yet.  Can you fix that?
>
> From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
> To: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>, "Hoffman, Allen"
> <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>,
> "'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'WCAG2ICT'"
> <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 07/25/2012 02:08 PM
> Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Michael,
> We don’t have anything to report on 3.2.3 yet.  Can you fix that?
> All best,
> Alex
>  
> *From:* Alex Li [mailto:alli@microsoft.com] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:17 AM*
> To:* Hoffman, Allen; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'*
> Subject:* RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT
>  
> Of course, we may need to wait till after the publication to make any
> change at this point.  The looming deadline may not allow us to make
> any change other than correcting typos and overt errors. -Alex
>  
> *From:* Hoffman, Allen [_mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV_] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:13 AM*
> To:* Alex Li; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'*
> Subject:* RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT
>  
> that works for me.
>  
>  
> *From:* Alex Li [_mailto:alli@microsoft.com_] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2012 2:10 PM*
> To:* Hoffman, Allen; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'*
> Subject:* RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT
>  
> How about changing the 4^th  paragraph in Document Overview from:
> “This document does not seek to determine what WCAG 2.0 provisions
> should or should not apply to non-Web ICT. Nor does it propose changes
> to WCAG 2.0 or its supporting techniques or interpretations for
> implementing WCAG 2.0 in Web technologies.” To “This document does not
> seek to determine what WCAG 2.0 provisions should or should not apply
> to non-Web ICT. Nor does it propose changes to WCAG 2.0 or its
> supporting techniques, common failures, and test procedures, or
> interpretations for implementing WCAG 2.0 in Web technologies.”
>  
> I think needs "remains to be completed".
>  
> *From:* Hoffman, Allen [_mailto:Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV_] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:06 AM*
> To:* Alex Li; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'*
> Subject:* RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT
>  
> I would like to see such noted in intro to give context to the
> remaining work.
>  
> *From:* Alex Li [_mailto:alli@microsoft.com_] *
> Sent:* Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:52 PM*
> To:* Hoffman, Allen; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'*
> Subject:* 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
> * *
> *Can**Adapt* *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?
>           o The biggest issue I could expect is that content that was
>             deleted is still showing up, though I've tried to check
>             for that.
>           o 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/>
>

-- 

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/>