RE: Overview WCAG 2.0 edits & questions

Concur

 

 


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
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

 

 


  _____  


From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Shawn Henry; EOWG (E-mail); Judy Brewer; Gregg
Vanderheiden; Wendy A Chisholm; Ben Caldwell
Subject: 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