Comments on ATAG 2.0

Hi all,

Congrats on the new draft. I think it is very good work.

The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft:

    * Does the refocused Part A provide developers with sufficient guidance
      on what must be done to ensure accessibility of authoring tools to
      authors with disabilities?

I think it goes a long way towards achieving this. The guidelines are
pretty explicit about the mappings between then and WCAG so the
relationship is two way and therefore much of this should be familiar to
some degree to many authors with even a moderate level of experience
with Web Standards.

    * Does the more direct relationship with WCAG 2.0 make the ATAG 2.0
      requirements more clear?

Yes.

    * Are there any other areas in which the guidelines may be lacking?

I think the techniques document could be improved. in terms of the way
they are currently  presented, they are a little difficult to parse.
Maybe a more staggered approach that gradually revealed the various
techniques may be better, including some improvements in general page
layout, colors used and the general format of the page? There is a lot
of information there and the way it is presented may put some people
off. This is a combination of an information architecture and design
issue and would be worth exploring to ensure that the message gets
across. Even simple things like better spacing between sections, a
greater kerning value for body text and other typography improvements
would also help.

HTH

Josh

Received on Friday, 28 November 2008 13:03:25 UTC