Proposed survey for WCAG WG

Fellow editors and WCAG WG co-chairs,

Below is my proposed 8 question "Ultimate(?) WCAG2ICT" survey.  I cannot 
create WCAG WG surveys, so I do this here in text.

Any comments/edits?  Perhaps we can get this out over the weekend or on 
Monday.


    1. Background: This survey contains all items the WCAG2ICT Task
    Force believes needs to be addressed prior to publication of our
    next - and hopefully final - public draft of WCAG2ICT.

Please see and review the TF proposed next (and final?) public draft of 
WCAG2ICT at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/

In the first several survey questions below, we ask for specific review 
of a few specific topics (changes that are more than simply editorial).  
On the assumption that they will be approved by the WG, all text-related 
changes have already been incorporated in the draft (at URL above).


    2. Short name of the document

The full title of the Working Group's document is: "Web Content 
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0", which contains the parenthetical 
abbreviation "WCAG".  We think this Note should similarly have a short 
title, namely "WCAG2ICT".  Thus the full title of this Note would be: 
"Guidance on Applying WCAG 2.0 to Non-Web Information and Communications 
Technologies (WCAG2ICT)".

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    3. Remove accidental statement that this Note addresses conformance

In the very first sentence of the Abstract (of the 2nd public draft), we 
erroneously stated that this document "...describes how [WCAG 2.0] and 
its principles, guidelines, success criteria AND CONFORMANCE MODEL can 
be applied to non-Web Information and Communications Technologies 
(ICT)".  The WG previously agreed with the TF that this Note wasn't 
going to address conformance.  Thus we believe we should remove the 
capitalized text "AND CONFORMANCE MODEL" above.

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    4. Fix our Note in SC 4.1.2 to tell readers this is for "software
    developers" (rather than for "Web authors")

SC 4.1.2 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#ensure-compat-rsv> 
includes a Note informing the reader "This success criterion is 
primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface 
components."  Since this document is directed at document authors and 
software developers, that note isn't appropriate.  Instead we believe 
the note should be: "Note: This success criterion is primarily for 
software developers who develop or use custom user interface components. 
For example, standard user interface components on most <glossary 
link>accessibility supported</glossary link> platforms already meet this 
success criterion when used according to specification".

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    5. Characterization of this document

We hope this is the final public draft before publication as a Working 
Group Note.  We would like to signal that to readers. This is done with 
a new sentence at the end of the second paragraph of Status of This 
Document <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#sotd>: "This document is 
planned to be the final version before submitting to W3C for publication 
as a Working Group Note."

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    6. Duration of the review period

We received no comments for our 2nd public draft.  While informing 
people that "his document is planned to be the final version before 
submitting to W3C for publication as a Working Group Note" may cause 
comments to come out of the woodwork, it is also the case that (a) this 
is just a WG Note, so can more easily be changed if necessary, and more 
importantly (b) we understand it will be significantly helpful to the 
Mandate 376 comment resolution process taking place September 9-13 if we 
have a published Working Group Note by then. To allow that to happen, we 
hope to publish on July 11th (or latest July 16th), and have a 5 week 
review time so that comments would be due on August 15th (or latest 
20th), giving us sufficient time to make this a published Working Group 
Note ahead of September 9th.

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    7. Acceptance of the text of WCAG2ICT

In "1. Background" above, you were asked to review the TF proposed next 
(and final?) public draft of WCAG2ICT at: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/, which contains all 
of the suggested edits in survey questions 2-6 above.  Do you approve 
publication of this text as?

  * Approve as proposed
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...


    8. Format of the WCAG2ICT presentation

A number of members of the TF feel that the quoted "Intent from 
Understanding" text in Comments by Guideline and Success Criterion 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wcag2ict/#wcag2ict_comments_principles-guidelines-sc> 
is cumbersome to have to read each time, and would like to see it 
collapsed in an accordion-style control.  A number of members of the TF 
(including some overlap!) feel that it is important to have that text 
present, and visible by default (uncollapsed), both to aid readers who 
may review a printed copy, and to minimize the reading challenges of 
users with screen readers and users with cognitive impairments who may 
have some difficulty with having to understand accordion-style expansion.

Therefore the TF proposes that we publish two documents: the "full, 
flat, non-collapsing" version currently at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/ will be published as 
the formal/reference document, in "TR space"; and the "full, collapsing 
and pre-collapsed" version current at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2013/WD-wcag2ict-20130606/accordion will be 
published as an alternate version, in "GL space".  Both will reference 
the other, and with public question for final being: "do you prefer A) 
flat only b) collapsable and collapsed only c) collapsable and expanded 
only, and d) what we have done for this draft?"

  * Approve as proposed: publish these two versions and the public
    question as stated
  * Approve with following changes
  * Don't approve
  * Comments: ...



Regards,

Peter

P.S. Gregg & I have a separate action to bring a WCAG Understanding 
clarification proposal to you around SC 1.3.1 and 3.3.1, relating to 
whether the appearance of an error (3.3.1) is itself an event that 
should be a programmatically determinable event (1.3.1) because it is 
"information" (1.3.1).   I hope Gregg and I can get that to you early 
next week, if not before Monday.

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment