RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT

We have consensus on 3.2.4 and it's approved by WCAG.

Andi




From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
To: Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, "'Michael Cooper'"
            <cooper@w3.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>,
            "'WCAG2ICT'" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Date: 07/25/2012 04:23 PM
Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT



Don’t forget 3.2.4.  I miscounted 4.1.2 into the list.  Eight is right.
Sorry for the false alarm.

From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:33 PM
To: Alex Li
Cc: Hoffman, Allen; 'Michael Cooper'; David MacDonald; 'WCAG2ICT'
Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT



Actually, there are only 7:

2.4.1 Bypass Blocks
2.4.2 Page Titled
2.4.5 Multiple Ways
3.1.1 Language of Page
3.1.2 Language of Parts
3.2.3 Consistent Navigation
4.1.1 Parsing

Andi


Inactive hide details for Alex Li ---07/25/2012 02:23:44 PM---One more
error spotted—because of the retraction of 2.4.2 Page TAlex Li
---07/25/2012 02:23:44 PM---One more error spotted—because of the
retraction of 2.4.2 Page Title by the WCAG WG, there are nine

From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
To: "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 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Editors' draft of WCAG2ICT




One more error spotted—because of the retraction of 2.4.2 Page Title by the
WCAG WG, there are nine SC without proposed guidelines instead of eight.
We need that corrected in the intro. -Alex

From: Alex Li
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:07 PM
To: Alex Li; Hoffman, Allen; David MacDonald; 'Michael Cooper'; 'WCAG2ICT'
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 4th 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

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
  "Enabling the Web"
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
Information Page