W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2005

[DRAFT!] First capture of draft EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:26:17 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051208230905.02368760@localhost>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

The following is a DRAFT of some of our first EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0. 
Please review these, and comment and/or add information for our 
teleconference this Friday.

Thanks,

- Judy

Following is a FIRST DRAFT list of EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0 draft 
documents, based on the 23 November 2005 Working Draft, as discussed in 
EOWG teleconference(s) on 9 December 2005. Specifically, the documents that 
we reviewed included...
         http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/

A. First, our comments on WCAG 2.0 WD
---------------------------------------------------

OVERALL

[do we want to make any overall comment here, about improvements in the 
document?]

ABSTRACT

1. It's not sufficiently clear in the abstract that the success criteria 
are what one needs to conform to. We suggest adding something such as: "The 
success criteria are the part one has to conform to, to meet the guidelines."

STATUS

2. It would be good to clearly state the status, first, e.g. this is a 
public working draft, which means (what's currently in P3)

3. The questions should be highlighted while the document continues to 
cycle through drafts; they get lost now.

4. The bottom of this section (TOC) needs a "Next" link.

INTRODUCTION

5. [in top section of intro] List of what this WCAG 2.0 includes is missing 
"Checklist."

6. [related documents] "Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is normative." Please 
clarify whether the checklist is also normative.

7. [related documents] Perhaps make more distinction between the Intro list 
of what's included in "this document" e.g. WCAG 2.0, and the "other 
documents" e.g. related documents. Also, remove the bolding on the document 
links.

8. Consider diversifying examples "(Assistive technologies include screen 
readers, screen magnifiers, on screen and alternative keyboards, single 
switches, and a wide variety of input and output devices that meet the 
needs of people with disabilities.) add VR

9. Baseline: consider making it clearer that these are hypothetical examples

CONFORMANCE

10. The Conformance section here is not really introductory material; it's 
very in-depth and important information on conformance. For people new to 
Web accessibility, they may still need a lead-in introducing why 
conformance is important, complex, and some initial concepts. Consider 
adding a true intro here, and break out the in-depth conformance info into 
a new chapter.

11. [NOTE] "Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and 
others do not contain level 2 success criteria." -- change to ~ "Some 
guidelines do not contain success criteria at every level."

12. ["delivery unit"] Thanks for the glossary link, BUT, the linked-to 
definition is still difficult to understand, and it doesn't help to see the 
note stating that this definition is verbatim someone else's definition.

13. Does the ATAG section fit here?

GUIDELINES

14. The nav & transition into this section is still confusing for some. 
When you click on the links... not sure if you're going to individual 
pages... that may create problems... used to one long document.

15. "Delivery units can be parsed unambiguously" -- this is tough to 
understand, even for techies.

.... and our conversation stopped roughly around here. To be continued on 
Dec 16.



-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 05:28:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:54 UTC