- From: Justin Thorp <justin@mycapitalweb.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 01:41:34 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
- Message-Id: <688476A7-B64F-422E-B991-4469D09857E0@mycapitalweb.com>
Hi All, I see the purpose of the checklist as being a quick easy way to simplify the document into something that you can just skim to make sure your web site is all there. From the checklist itself, I should be able to, for the most part, make sense of what I needed to accomplish. For me, the WCAG 1.0 checklist was really cool and really helpful. It simplifies the document very well. I could look at the web site and look at the checklist and make sure that I had all of the parts that I needed (ie. images, forms, tables.) I understand the necessity of having WCAG 2.0 being not technology specific but this makes just reading a list of the success criteria by themselves a whole lot less useful, at least for me as a developer. It is less of practical items that I need to accomplish. "2.4.4 Each link is programmatically associated with text from which its purpose can be determined" That doesn't mean a whole lot to the me when making a web site, at least without having to sit and think about it. Now when I have read the list of techniques and the "how to" part, I have a more practical idea of what needs to be accomplished. I guess what I am saying is that I think the WCAG 2.0 checklist misses the point of being a checklist. WCAG 2.0 is really awesome but part of my concern is that it is really huge. As a developer, I could go through WCAG 1.0 and find the relevant information that I needed to make sure I had what I needed in my website. It is all there in WCAG 2.0 in amazingly rich detail. That amazingly rich detail is just so much information to parse. This is just a total brain storm and granted its probably out of the scope for anything right now...it'd be cool to have a form where I could describe my web site and it would spit back all the parts of WCAG 2.0 that were applicable to my web site. This would give me more of that practical checklist that I could drill down through to make sure that i got everything. Another brainstorm and probably out of the scope of anything...I wish WCAG 2.0 was published in a book. For me, I have no problem making sense of an article on the web but its different when its a large volume. I know I have access to printers and binders but printing all of that out (WCAG 2.0, Understanding, Techniques) is just a lot. For me the printed page, when trying to go through that much information, is just easier to process. I'd pay $20 bucks to buy a bound copy of WCAG 2.0. Sincerely, Justin On May 9, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Shawn Henry wrote: > 3. Checklist for WCAG 2.0 / Appendix B: Checklist (Non-Normative) > * http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html > Focusing on: > - Presentation, including grouping and color > - Introduction: Does it place the document well within the context > of the other documents?
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 05:42:00 UTC