WCAG 2: Background and Abstract

Hello All,
1. The abstract does not read like one. An abstract should be a  summary / shhort overview  of the doc. This is unlike the one  for WCAG 1.0 which really reads like an abstract.
2. There is a need for a "Background" somewhere  at the start of the doc. It  can become the basis for  a later section that will explain transition from 1.0 to 2.0. More importantly it is necessary to state what has changed since 1.0 was released and   why  there is a need for 2.0. The abstract now merely states  that feedback on 1.0 is being incorporated and "It attempts to apply checkpoints to a wider range of technologies and to use wording that may be understood by a more varied audience". I find this tenuous and do not find it reason enough  to migrate from 1.0 to 2.0. Why is a change in conformance methodology necessary from the P1, p2 etc style ? 
- "Wider technology" needs to be  clarified enough   to justify a new guideline that changes priority levels of existing checkpoints. Note that 1.0 also mentions SMIL, MathML and CSS. Client/Server side scripting and XML also have been around  before release of 1.0. Hand held devices and mobile technology    too have been around ...they  are more advanced now.
- Significant issues raised by feedback  on 1.0 needs to be  referenced in the background too.
- Will one have the option to  continue using  1.0 ?

3. The Introduction section of 1.0 brings out the beneficiaries of  accessible design very eloquently. Can something similar be incorporated here in 2.0?
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc
11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
Fax: 703-225-0387
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *

Received on Friday, 22 August 2003 23:42:43 UTC