W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: WCAG 2.0 jungle + some comments

From: Sylvie Duchateau <sylvie.duchateau@snv.jussieu.fr>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:32:50 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Hello all,

I also agree that the main document of WCAG 2.0 is confusing for people who 
develop Web pages as well as for people who want to evaluate Web pages 
conformance to WCAG 2.0, and, of course, for people who will have to modify 
their training courses on Web accessibility.

1. I know that the four documents mentionned in Wendy's e-mail are still 
drafts, but I think it could have been helpful to explain the links between 
those four documents in the Guidelines document.

I tried to read the guidelines from a perspective of someone who wants to 
develop accessible Web sites and also from the perspective of someone who 
wants to evaluate Web sites, and I think it is not easy to understand what 
to do to make Web sites accessible.

I like the examples in the guidelines and the "who benefits" section.

The idea of making the Guidelines more general and not specific for any 
technology may be good, but it is then not easy, when you are using a 
specific technology, to know how implement each success criteria on that 

If I develop a Web site for soemone who wants to have forms implemented on 
his Web site, it is not easy for me to find in the guideline as itself, 
where the topic "forms" is considerd.

To my opinion, the document, "gateway to techniques" is clearer for a Web 

2. If I want to evaluate a Web page for WCAG 2.0 compliance, how can I 
check if success criteria are met or not?

For example, if I read Guideline 2.2, "time limit"
"Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction unless 
real-time events or rules of competition make such control impossible."
If I don't read the mapping between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0, I do not know that 
this guideline refers to checkpoints 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5 in WCAG 1.0. That 
is: blinking, auto-direct, auto-refresh, and movement.

3. Some sections of the guidelines are very technical.
For example, I wonder if the term "photosensitive epileptic seizures" can 
be understood by everybody. (see Guideline 2.3: 
See also the explanations on "General Flash Threshold" which cannot be 
understood by someone who is not a specialist of this topic. I think this 
explanation could better  be placed in a techniques document than in the 
Guideline as itself.
Guideline 2.3 states also that there should be a tool to measure all this 
in the second quarter of 2004. I would then ask the group what it is about 
this tool?

I would have other comments on the success criteria themselves, but they 
will be sent later.


A 12:49 27/08/2004, Henk Snetselaar a écrit :
>Hi all,
>Yes it is not easy to find your way!
>I made a picture of the WCAG 2.0 jungle, (see attachment) perhaps it
>will help to discuss this issue.
>H. Snetselaar
>Bartimeus Educational Institute for the Blind and Partially Sighted
>Utrechtseweg 84, 3702 AD  Zeist, the Netherlands
>Tel: +31-(0)30-6982211 or +31(0)30-6982350
>Fax: +31-(0)30-6982388
>E-mail: H.Snetselaar@bartimeus.nl
>Website: www.bartimeus.nl and www.accessibility.nl
>Zie voor disclaimer (Read our disclaimer):
> >>> <michaeka@wellsfargo.com> 27-8-04 0:34 >>>
>Hello, all -
>Regarding WCAG 2.0 et al., I think there are too many documents, which
>navigation confusing.
>Rather than have the three layers described in WCAG 2.0 "How to read
>document" (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#how-to), layers two and three
>be combined into one. The checklist and application info for each
>would be combined into one technology document (or "document site" if
>it was
>decided to split the document into separate Web pages).
>This way, the user is either at the overall WCAG 2.0 document or at
>document for a specific technology, which would make it easier for
>users to
>know where they are.
>The Gateway to Techniques for WCAG 2.0
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GATEWAY-20040730/) adds yet
>document to the mix. I also find it confusing, both in content and
>Its content could be moved to WCAG 2.0 or to the specific technology
>documents (or "technology document sites").
>Each guideline in WCAG 2.0 could include information on:
>a. Explanation of what the guideline is - for example:
>Maybe this could be a simple description with a link to a more
>description of the guideline.
>b. Success criteria of the guideline - for example,
>c. Link to Who Benefits
>d. Link to Examples
>e. Links to specific technology guidelines
>Blossom Michaeloff
>Web Research and Design
>Wells Fargo

Sylvie Duchateau
Association BrailleNet
Tél.: +33 (0) 1 44 27 26 25
Web: http://www.braillenet.org
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 12:32:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:36 UTC