RE: [DRAFT] Second capture of draft EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0

A few additional comments on the draft below:

Table of Contents

Additional comment - Why doesn't the ToC precede the Introduction in the
complete.html version? (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/complete.html) As a
result of it's current position it appears on page 12 when I print the
document.

Guidelines

Para 14 - "how to meet" loaded quickly for me - but I am on a DSL
connection. May be we could suggest that the "Understanding" document gets
broken down by Guideline for quicker access (as well as offering the entire
doc)?

New comments:

Guideline 1.1 - SC 1.1.5 currently reads "For live audio-only or video-only
content ...", however given the linked text it should read "For live
audio-only or live video-only content ..."

Guideline 1.1 - SC 1.1.6 is confusing. The current "how to meet" describes
captions as synchronised and describes audio description as something added
to the soundtrack. The SC says to provide a combined document of these -
maybe it should say to provide a separate text document containing the
content of these. And I personally think this should be a Level 2 SC as it
is about content design.

I'll add other Guidelines comments over the weekend

Regards, Andrew
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
454 Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong 3144, Australia
Ph +61 (0)3 9864 9282; Fax +61 (0)3 9864 9370
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/




-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Judy Brewer
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2006 4:31 PM
To: EOWG
Subject: [DRAFT] Second capture of draft EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0



EOWG:

In the following draft, please note the multiple locations where there is
"**EOWG" at the start of a comment -- that means that we have remaining
questions to discuss in our 6 January 2006 teleconference.

- Judy

Following is a SECOND DRAFT of EOWG comments on the 23 November 2005 WCAG
2.0 draft documents, as discussed in EOWG teleconferences on 9 and 16
December 2005.

Please note that with the exception of our comments on the normative
glossary entries, the majority of these comments are editorial in nature.

The documents that EOWG reviewed include:
         A. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/
         B. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/appendixB.html
         C. http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
         D. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20.phpb

A. DRAFT COMMENTS ON WCAG 2.0 WD
----------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

1. It's not sufficiently clear in the abstract that the success criteria
are what one needs to conform to. We suggest adding something simple,
straightforward, and difficult-to-miss up front in the abstract, such as:
"The WCAG 2.0 success criteria are what one must conform to in order to
meet the guidelines."

STATUS

2. Though the content of this section will change some with each subsequent
draft, it is valuable information for reviewers. Given this, it would be
helpful to clearly state the status in the first paragraph following the
boilerplate paragraph, e.g.: "This document is a Public Working Draft made
available for community review" followed by the current contents of
paragraphs 3 & 4, rolled together ("Publication as a WD does not imply..."
and "The WCAG WG intends...")

3. For future drafts, we recommend breaking out the questions into a list
(in the paragraph starting with "The WCAG WG encourages feedback...")
and/or highlighting the questions, so that they do not become lost in the
rest of the text, given the importance of the feedback process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4. There needs to be a "next" link at the bottom of the table of contents
so that the reader will not come to what looks like a dead end.

INTRODUCTION

5. [Third paragraph] The list of what WCAG 2.0 includes is missing
"Checklist."

6. ["Related documents" first paragraph] "Only this document (WCAG 2.0) is
normative." Please clarify whether the Checklist is also normative.

7. ["Related documents"] Though much clearer than in earlier drafts, the
Introduction is still somewhat confusing. We recommend making more
distinction between the list of what's included in "this document" e.g.
WCAG 2.0 at the top of the "Introduction" section, and the list of
"informative documents." Just re-iterating "other" in the lower section
might help, e.g. "Currently, these other informative documents include:"
Also, the bolding on the document links is distracting; we suggest removing
it.

CONFORMANCE

8. [Whole section] The Conformance section here is not really
introductory-level material, yet it is part of the Introduction; it's very
in-depth and essential information on conformance, with strong bearing on
the how the guidelines can be normatively applied. People new to Web
accessibility will most likely still need a true "introduction" to
conformance, inotherwords a quick & simple "heads-up" for why conformance
is even an important consideration for Web content accessibility, plus a
quick preview of some initial concepts that will be used in the more
complete explanation of conformance. Please consider adding a true intro to
conformance in the "Introduction," and break out the existing in-depth
conformance info into a separate section from the "Introduction."

9. ["Assumptions/baseline"] To increase the cross-disability diversity of
the examples "(Assistive technologies include screen readers, screen
magnifiers, on screen and alternative keyboards, single switches, and a
wide variety of input and output devices that meet the needs of people with
disabilities)", add voice recognition.

10. ["Assumptions/baseline"] *Important*: Please make it very clear that
the examples of baselines for given contexts are hypothetical, not actual.

11. ["Note" (immediately following the description of level 1, 2, 3 success
criteria)] "Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and
others do not contain level 2 success criteria." -- It would be more
accurate and clearer to say: "Some guidelines do not contain success
criteria at every level."

12. ["Delivery unit"] See comments in "GUIDELINES" and "GLOSSARY" sections
on delivery unit.

13. ["Authoring Tools"] While EOWG appreciates the need to help build
awareness of how WCAG relates to other WAI guidelines and resources, as
currently written this section does not seem to fit well in the
Introduction. We do not have a specific recommendation at this time on how
to improve it, but would support finding a better way to integrate this
rather than entirely removing it.

GUIDELINES

**EOWG Please check the two questions here** 14. [Overall comment for the
guidelines section] The navigation and transition into this section is
better than in previous versions, but still confusing for some people.
[*EOWG -- we need to clarify what/why.*] When you click on the "how to
meet" links, it is unclear that you are going to a specific location within
the "Understanding" document because of the size & delay in loading that
document. [*EOWG -- please confirm that this was the problem that we
identified.*]

15. [4.1.1] "4.1.1  Delivery units can be parsed unambiguously and the
relationships in the resulting data structure are also unambiguous." --
this is tough to understand, even for people with strong technical
background. EOWG was unable to come up with a better suggestion, but
perhaps taking a common word and defining it precisely in the context of
WCAG would be preferable to using such an obscure term as "delivery units."
"Parsed unambiguously" also creates problems in interpretation, and perhaps
it should be clarified that this pertains to syntax not semantics.

**EOWG are there really no other comments on anything in the "guidelines"
section of WCAG 2.0 WD?**

GLOSSARY

**EOWG Please check, I have revised this comment** 16. [Overall comment on
Glossary] The glossary is in some cases used for more than giving a
description or definition of a word or phrase, it provides in-depth
information about how a certain principle is applied in a guideline, or how
to conform to a guideline or success criteria. If the are normative, should
the detailed information be built back into the success criteria, which is
the essential core that will be referenced by organizations requiring
compliance to WCAG 2.0? If not normative, should the detailed information
be built into the "how to meet" section of the "Understanding" document?
Examples: "general flash threshold," "link," "luminosity contrast ratio,"
"red flash threshold," and the second part of the "event handler"
description.

17. ["Emergency: a sudden, unexpected situation or occurrence that requires
immediate action to preserve health, safety or property"] EOWG recommends
removing this item from the glossary as it is a commonly used term, and the
definition here does not provide information of specific relevance to WCAG.

**EOWG Please reconsider this comment in the original context of the
document** 18. ["Foreign passages or phrases"] The term "foreign" does not
capture the common situation of multilingualism in many countries, where
another language than the primary language of the text is not necessarily
"foreign." EOWG recommends replacing this with "change of language."
[**EOWG However, that does not fit back in the original context well:
"3.1.2  The natural language of each foreign passage or phrase in the
content can be programmatically determined." Other suggestions?]

19. ["Delivery unit"] The glossary link should be helpful, however the
linked-to definition is still difficult to understand. It is not helpful to
see the note stating that this definition is verbatim copied from another
group's definition.

20. ["Information conveyed by color" and "Information that is conveyed by
color"] One of these entries must be a typo. Also, we are unclear why this
phrase appears in the glossary, rather than in a "key terms" section in
"Understanding WCAG 2.0."

**EOWG Please re-clarify why we said that the definition was ambiguous...**
21. ["Keyboard Interface"] The definition is difficult to understand and
needs clarification.

**EOWG Please re-examine our comment in light of original context...** 22.
["Live audio-only" and Live vide-only"] EOWG recommends considering the
phrases "audio-only live presentation: and "video-only live presentation"
because they more clearly describe certain kinds of presentation. Also, in
the description of "live audio-only," the second time 'only' is redundant.

23. ["Lower secondary education level and Primary education level"] Rather
than trying to define these terms, which despite using a UN definition are
so different in different cultures, EOWG proposes looking at scales of
literacy levels rather than educational years.

**EOWG discussion and approval** 24. In addition, please see eight items
for discussion and coordination at top of page
http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/glossary/2005-12-13


B. COMMENTS ON CHECKLIST FOR WCAG 2.0
---------------------------------------

[#] [*EOWG: Are there really no comments at all on the Checklist?*]


C. COMMENTS ON UNDERSTANDING WCAG 2.0

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

In general this document seems very helpful. However, EOWG participants
expressed concerns about the title and the organization of the document.

[Title of document] EOWG had lots of discussion about concerns about the
title of the document, and concerns about how the title might be
misconstrued. Concerns included:
- the title of the document should better convey that this document is
essential to read; "Understanding" implies something more reflective and
less essential to read.
- the title of the document may unnecessarily reinforce the notion that
WCAG 2.0 is incomprehensible.

Other titles to consider:
- The Essential Guide to WCAG 2.0
- A Guide to Meeting WCAG 2.0

[Organization of document] Concerns about the organization of the document
included:
- whether too much essential information necessary for conformance had been
moved to this document, and some should be re-integrated back into the
primary WCAG 2.0 document, so that it will be present in the referenceable
document;
- whether the "Understanding" document should itself be on a W3C
Recommendation track, similar to some other document suites such as OWL
(see "OWL Web Ontology Language Overview" and "OWL Web Ontology Language
Guide", both W3C Recommendations) and RDF (see "RDF Primer," a W3C
Recommendation).
- whether the material in "Understanding WCAG 2.0" should in fact be broken
up yet further, into more modules.

###


--

Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C)
MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA


__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Later
for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  http://www.ellaforspam.com

Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 13:25:55 UTC