- From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 08:58:31 +0200
- To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
I wonder really whether this level of detail is appropriate at all in an introduction. The glossary, which is where one would expect to find a detailed explanation is only a fraction of the length. Likewise the preceding paragraph on Web units. The final paragraph on baselines seems better, providing an introduction and a link to what's in the About Baseelines. best regards, -- Alan Chuter Accessibility Consultant, Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios), Madrid, Spain. achuter@technosite.es On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:02:14 +0200, Pasquale Popolizio <pasquale@osservatoriosullacomunicazione.com> wrote: > > Hi Judy, hi all, > some my thoughts: > > 1. Introduction to WCAG 2.0 > * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html > > penultimate paragraph: > > "Several success criteria require that content (or certain aspects of > content) can be "programmatically determined." This means that the > author is responsible for ensuring that the content is delivered in such > a way that software can access it. This is important in order to allow > assistive technologies to recognize it and present it to the user, even > if the user requires a different sensory modality than the original. For > example, some assistive technologies convert text into speech or > braille. This will also allow content in the future to be translated > into simpler forms for people with cognitive disabilities, or to allow > access by other agent based technologies. This can happen only if the > content itself can be programmatically determined." > > I find this paragraph is a bit difficult to understand. > > > 2. Comparison between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 > * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html > > In this list there is a Priority checkpoint order, while in the WCAG 2.0 > - Appendix B: Checklist > * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixB.html > > the order is by Guideline. > > So I think that maybe the user/reader can be disoriented. > > > regsrds > ciao > > ~ pasquale > > > > > > Il giorno 18/mag/06, alle ore 06:32, Judy Brewer ha scritto: > >> >> Dear EOWG Participants: >> >> An agenda and calling logistics for our 19 May 2006 teleconference >> follow, as well as links for document sections to review. >> >> Time: 8:30am - 10:30am U.S. Eastern Time. For other time zones see: >> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html >> Bridge: +1.617.761.6200, code: EOWG# (3694#) >> IRC: Channel: #eo, server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665 >> >> Scribe: Listed at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html >> >> Agenda: >> >> We're continuing our review of the WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft >> this week, and focusing on the remaining sections. Please post comments >> to the list in advance if possible -- thanks. >> >> 1. Introduction to WCAG 2.0 [very brief check] >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/intro.html >> Focusing on: >> - Does the introduction give a clear picture of what is in WCAG 2.0? >> - Are there any parts that might be confusing for readers? >> >> 2. Comparison between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 [very brief check] >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html >> Focusing on: >> - Helpful? Clear? >> - Does it need any more context up front? >> >> 3. Glossary [brief check] >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixA.html >> Focusing on: >> - Are the glossary entries clearer now, and helpful for understanding >> the text? >> - Are any of the definitions unclear, or significantly conflicting with >> other versions of WAI definitions for those terms? >> >> 4. Guidelines [not so brief] >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/guidelines.html >> Focusing on: >> - At the guideline level -- any substantial remaining understandability >> problems? >> - At the success criteria level -- ditto? >> Note: >> - We probably will not have sufficient time to go through all of these, >> but will select a few to highlight & discuss if needed; >> people can follow up w/ posting more individual comments as needed. >> >> 5. Comment wrap-up >> - reviewing and approving comments drafted to date >> >> Regards, >> >> ~ Judy & Shawn >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 19 May 2006 07:02:30 UTC