RE: Overview WCAG 2.0 edits & questions

Thanks, Shawn.
 
I agree with Gregg's comments below, except for the question about the
Application Notes section, where Shadi raised a concern and (I think)
suggested an edit or at least indicated what the edit should accomplish.
 
Also, pleaise note that *criterion* is the sugular, *criteria* is
plural. So for each occurrence of, e.g, "each criteria" change to "each
criterion"
 
John
 

"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

 


________________________________

	From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
	Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:42 pm
	To: 'Shawn Henry'; 'EOWG (E-mail)'; 'Judy Brewer'; 'Gregg
Vanderheiden'; John M Slatin; 'Wendy A Chisholm'; 'Ben Caldwell'
	Subject: RE: Overview WCAG 2.0 edits & questions
	
	

	 

	COMMENTS BELOW MARKED GV: 

	 

	 

	Gregg

	 

	 -- ------------------------------ 

	Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

	Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.

	Director - Trace R & D Center 

	University of Wisconsin-Madison 

	The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

	 

	-----Original Message-----

	From: Shawn Henry [mailto:shawn@w3.org] 

	Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:01 PM

	To: EOWG (E-mail); Judy Brewer; Gregg Vanderheiden; John M
Slatin; Wendy A Chisholm; Ben Caldwell

	Subject: Overview WCAG 2.0 edits & questions

	 

	EOWG Participants & WCAG Editors,

	 

	I made most of the changes from Friday's EOWG teleconference to
"Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents" at:

	      http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.php#in2

	(The previous version is available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-old ) Changes are listed in the
changelog at: 

	
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-wcag20.html#n2006-05-02

	 

	Please comment on the proposed additions below. I hope to put
these in place yet this week.

	 

	Change requests pending:

	* make it clear that Understanding is the document to read

	GV: Good idea.  And your suggested text below looks good too

	 

	* consider identifying the audience for the different documents,
to help clarify who should read them and how they are designed

	GV: Hmmmm.   The different docs don't really have different
audiences.   All need to read all. 

	 

	 

	Proposed additions:

	 

	1. under <h2>"WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Documents", in
<h3>"Understanding WCAG 2.0" section, at the end (after the list), add a
paragraph:

	"Understanding WCAG 2.0 will be the primary document that many
people use to learn and apply WCAG 2.0, as it lists each guideline and
success criteria from WCAG 2.0 along with the additional information
described above."

	 

	GV: Looks fine. 

	 

	[Ed note: I strongly suggest adding something like this] 

	 

	GV: Agree

	 

	 

	Note that I already edited the first paragraph to be:
"Understanding WCAG 2.0 is a guide to learning and implementing WCAG
2.0. It provides extensive guidance to help understand the intent of
each guideline and success criteria, and it lists techniques to meet
each success criteria." And after that is the list of sections for each
success criteria. Comments welcome.

	 

	GV:  Good rewording. 

	 

	2. under <h2>"WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Documents", in <h3>"WCAG
2.0" section, at the end, add a paragraph:

	"WCAG 2.0 will replace WCAG 1.0, and be the formal, stable
document for references, such as in policies."

	 

	GV: This isn't actually correct.  When 2.0 comes out 1.0 will
still be valid and can still be used.  

	 

	OR the less scary, more vague:

	"WCAG 2.0 will be the stable document for formal references."

	 

	GV:  Better but -you're right - it is vague.     It will be
stable but WCAG 1.0 will also be stable. 

	 

	 

	[Ed note: I mildly suggest adding something like this, but am
fine leaving it off if it seems too problematic]

	 

	GV:  Probably would leave it off.  Not needed and can be
problematic.   Complicated topic. 

	 

	3. none other

	- I don't think we need to add anything about audience to
Techniques (or Application Notes) - I hope what we have there now makes
it clear enough that it's primarily for developers.

	GV: agree

	- I don;t think we want to add anything about audience for About
Baselines doc, because most everyone will need to at least skim the doc,
and certain level policy makers, Web project managers, and some others
will need to study it in detail. It would be difficult to define and
communicate that succinctly.

	GV: agree

	 

	---

	Thanks for any quick replies.

	 

	~Shawn