WCAG 2.0 draft

In the paragraph labeled "audience", the last sentence is " For first time 
users, the work of the Education and Outreach Working Group of the Web 
Accessibility Initiative is highly recommended."

I think it should go farther than this and emphasize that this is a rather 
"technical" document intended to be the reference material for all WAI 
activities: the ATAG tries to insure that authoring tools produce output 
that conforms to this (someday-to-be?) recommendation; the UAAG tries to 
insure that the "user agents" (browsers) more-or-less demand compliance. So 
this is not for someone wanting to learn about Accessibility and the urge 
to visit EOWG materials should be very strong indeed - even to the point of 
dissuading all but the most hardy from the guidelines themselves.

I further believe that the section "Priorities and Techniques" should only 
include the first two explanatory paragraphs and all significant references 
to the "changelog" aspect of the differences between this one and 1.0 
should be in some separate narrative.

I believe that the "Required Success Criteria" concept is valid and 
reasonably understandable. It is made clear that this is not some sort of 
numerically measurable thing but still makes sense to any but the most 
picky. In other words, it's not too vague, but simple enough. In my opinion.

Insofar as the EO slant on the project, it is likely that we can avoid a 
defensive posture about the nebulosity of the "criteria" by an appeal to 
common sense - after all what we are trying to do is clear: make the Web 
accessible to PWD of every persuasion. Everybody using these guidelines has 
the same goal.

I think our main contribution is not so much the details of the draft's 
content (that's a job for the WG and unless we join it, we'd make better 
use of our time than trying to deal with the innards), but a sort of 
announcement like a press release sort of thing that extolls its virtues 
and points out that it is intended to be a technical recommendation, not 
light reading for someone who could be adequately served by delving into 
EOWG stuff.

In terms of "populariz(s)ing" it, I think we should prepare the sorts of 
things that authors other than those of the programs do in books that 
complement/supplement the tech manuals accompanying software. As mentioned 
in another post I am doing something of the kind, but it's still quite rough.

http://rdf.pair.com/guide.htm
http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm
http://www.webeone.org/wcagtet.htm


--
Love.

It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!