W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

[Draft] Compiled EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:46:30 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

Hi all,

Here is a compilation of the EOWG comments that we've talked about at our 
recent EOWG meetings. Note that the comments are not yet entered into the 
recommended comments form.

We'll do a walk-through in the EOWG meeting, to confirm that the comments 
are clear, and identify any remaining questions.

Note that there are several batches of comments below. The first batches 
are on the comments on the guidelines document itself; the others are on 
the support material.

Thanks for Andrew Arch for his having compiled many of these comments 
during our 12 June 2006 meeting.


- Judy

COMMENTS ON INTRO TO WCAG 2.0 (from 20060619)

1. "Quick Table of Contents" at start of intro is confusing. Clarify that 
the intro section is part of a set of pages. See detailed comment and 
suggestions at: 

2. The amount of jargon in the introduction makes it less helpful than 
possible as introductory material. For instance, ""Conformance", "success 
criteria", "how to meet links",  "intent",
"sufficient techniques", "baseline assumptions." Copyedit for increased use 
of plain English explanations.

3. Rephrase "'how to meet' links" for better readability.

4. The penultimate paragraph ("Several success criteria require...") is 
difficult to understand and contains more detail than seems necessary or 
appropriate for an introduction. Copyedit to clarify and simplify.


1. [**REVISIT IN LIGHT OF FEEDBACK**] In the discussion of baseline and 
conformance, it seems that there is potential for misuse of baseline [e.g. 
authors might be able to just declare their own level of technology, for 
instance: "requires CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2." The actual/potential 
audience, not just perceived/target audience or what developers wish they 
could reply on, should define baseline. EOWG Recommends several strategies
A) to give guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Internet sites 
today, W3C should
publish a 'reasonable/realistic' baseline recommended for a general audience;
B) update this 'recommended' baseline annually;
C) place the 'recommended' baseline outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative 
D) provide an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended


1. Difficult to parse because it is overly marked up (underline; color; 
font; plus italics on glossary terms); and yellow on-hover highlights. 
Recommend to at least drop italics, and possibly the on-hover.

2. Success criteria 1.1.1 is difficult to parse. Success criteria 2.2.1 is 
somewhat easier to parse, due to the "at least one of the following" 
phrasing. Success criteria 2.5.3, same issue. Recommend that the phrasing 
of parallel logical conditions should be consistent across all success 
criteria, and written for high readability; currently some of them read 
like riddles.

3. Add glossary entry for "timeout"

COMMENTS ON GLOSSARY (from 20060619)

1. Add EOWG definition of "conformance" to WCAG 2.0 glossary, and reference 
in definition of "normative"

2. The definition of "normative" refers to "conformance" but there is no 
definition of "conformance"

3. [**NEEDS CLARIFICATION**] It seems restrictive to tie assistive 
technology (AT) to "API-based" AT; discussion of AT only in context of API.

4. [**NEEDS CLARIFICATION**] 2.0 changes significantly the interpretation 
of "basic technology".

[For more background, see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2006AprJun/0114.html ]


1. BUG: The caption for each table (guideline number and title) does not 
display in Opera 8

2. Remove the 'mouse-over' highlighting colour - adds confusion

3. Change 'L1' to 'Level 1' etc, and add a heading of 'Level' to the first 

4. In the 'blurb' explaining what the Appendix is for, explain that it is 
intended that you can save the document and add comments to the fourth 
column as a report. Alternatively, provide a simpler table and also a 
downloadable (RTF) document for evaluation reporting and annotation purposes

5. Glossary items hard to follow because of Notes. EOWG recommends 
integrating these back into the main definition, and linking back to the 
main use of the term in the guidelines.

COMMENTS ON COMPARISON BETWEEN WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 (from 20060619)

1. Having an empty Quick Table of Contents is confusing; eliminate, unless 
sections are added so that the quick toc is needed.

2. Heading of left column is unclear & needs more context.

3. Use of priority instead of levels seems inconsistent with the rest of 
WCAG 2.0; change to "level".

4. Allow multiple views of comparison table, for instance: ordering by 2.0 
success criteria sequence; or by 1.0 checkpoint sequence; or by level; or 
by keyword.

5. Clarify in intro to the comparison that this is a complex comparison, 
showing both correspondences and differences.

6. To increase usability of the table, add a column for keywords, and a 
column for type of comparison.

7. Improve readability by screen reader. Linearization may not work well 
for this type of table, without adding extensive orientation notes, because 
so complex.

8. Title is unclear. Recommend using: "Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints 
and WCAG 2.0 success criteria"

9. Add a few use-cases to the intro, to highlight what this comparison 
table can be used for.


1. Helpful detail in "Understanding WCAG 2.0." EOWG sends its compliments.

2. Introduction needs an opening statement along the lines of "this is not 
an introductory document - it is a detailed description of the guidelines 
and their success criteria" and adds a pointer to the "Overview"
document for people requiring a simple introduction.

3. The title of "Understanding WCAG 2.0" continues to be a concern for 
EOWG, from several directions. EOWG recommends adding an exlanatory 
subheading to the document. Suggestions include:
    a. Your guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
    b. A guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
    c. A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
    d. The authoritative, encyclopaedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
    e. A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0
    f. A guide to understanding and using WCAG 2.0

4. For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word summary, 
rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as "shortname".


1. Re-structure the document so that there is:
- a short first section which gives you the basics of what baseline is, 
without any background or examples;
- then an explanation of essential things needed to implement the baseline 
concept, including examples;
- and finally a section such as an appendix that might be set up like a 
Q/A, and would include other things that people may be wondering about such 
as why UAAG wasn't used as the baseline, and selected other important 
material from the background.

2. Shorten the entire "about baseline" document by as much as half, in 
order to greatly increase the chance that this material will be read and 
used. This shortening could be achieved by a combination of the 
restructuring suggestions in several of our comments here, plus a 
substantial rewriting of the text to focus less on discussion of rationales 
and approaches, and more on concise practical information that instructs 
the reader how to apply the baseline concept to their use of WCAG 2.0.

3. Take the concepts from the first three paragraphs of the "What is a 
baseline" section; simplify them (try just one or two short, simple 
paragraphs); and make them an introduction to put at the very beginning of 
the "About Baseline" document. If this can be done in a way that includes 
simple statements about what baseline is (for instance, in a bulleted list, 
or something equally terse and clear), then also add a brief statement that 
baseline is not browser or assistive technology specifications. But don't 
add a statement about what it isn't unless the introduction already 
includes a clear statement of what it is.

4. Add a prominent link from the introduction of the baseline section to 
the conformance section of WCAG 2.0, and remove redundant info about 
conformance from the baseline document itself. (Note that, for now, we are 
not recommending the removal of information about baseline from the 
conformance section of WCAG 2.0.)

5. Rename the "Background" section of "About baseline..." to something such 
as "Why baseline is needed" or "Why baseline is useful"; then shorten it by 
about 2/3 and change the perspective from "this is what the WG did" to 
"this is why baseline is needed, and what it gets you."


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 Friday, 16 June 2006 04:47:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:39 UTC