WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's Draft

I thought this was generally clear, especially the "conformance  
requirements" section. I have some questions about the first part, though.

"The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more  
important than others." But there should be an explanation of why the  
levels are assigned, if they are not based on importance. I think the idea  
is to explain this in the bullet that comes afterwards, but the  
relationship wasn't clear to me. Perhaps a desriptive name for each level  
would help, but would be difficult to do.

I like the explanation of the qualitative nature of the levels. the  
importance of AT is clear, but perhaps not other aspects. The "direct  
access to content" in the level 2 bullet, I take to mean people with  
cognitive or some motor disabilities, but perhaps this needs to be made  
explicit in order to be understandable.

The word "limits" in "more limits on visual presentation and other aspects  
of content" is perhaps not very clear; could be more explicit.

The phrase "When people who understand how people with different types of  
disabilities use the Web test the same content" has the verb and the  
subject rather far apart, which made it difficult to read. Perhaps  
something like "When two people both test the same content and both  
understand how people with different types of disabilities use the Web..."

The paragraph that starts "For each success criterion, there is a list of  
techniques..." describes a rather difficult concept, although I understood  
it. I can't help feeling that some kind of diagram or chart could explain  
this more clearly to sighted readers, although I'm clueless about what it  
might be like.

The section on "User agents, technology-independence and "relied upon"  
technologies" seems to me to be quite clear, but I wonder whether it might  
not be better moved to somewhere else in the document, just keeping here  
the information about how to put the information in the conformance claim.

The phrase "To reinforce the need to enable" is difficult to decipher, I  
think.

"To make it easier for authors" might be more elegantly written as "To  
assist authors". In the list, item 2b, change "supported in a  
widely-distributed plug-in that are" to "supported _by_ a  
widely-distributed plug-in that _is_" ("in" to "by" and "are" to "is").

best regards,


-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant
Technosite (Fundación ONCE)
achuter@technosite.es
www.technosite.es
Tel. +34 91 121 03 35
Skype: achuter1


En Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:37:18 +0200, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> escribió:

>
> Dear EOWG Participants:
>
> An agenda and calling logistics for our 20 April 2007 teleconference  
> follow.
>
> 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:  see http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/scribes.html
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1. WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's Draft
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#conformance
> Please look through this section of the editor's draft of the upcoming  
> WCAG 2.0 Working Draft. We're looking for input into some copyediting on  
> different sections of the document, and particularly want to discuss the  
> following during the EOWG meeting:
> - After reading this section, do you understand how conformance to WCAG  
> 2.0 works?
> - Is there any information in the conformance section that could be  
> moved elsewhere?
> - Could it be simplified and/or shortened, and if so, how?
>
> 2. Upcoming ATAG 2.0 Drafts
> - Opportunities to synchronize release of ATAG 2.0 drafts with WCAG 2.0  
> drafts
> - Brainstorming ideas for messaging the ATAG 2.0 publications, including  
> if jointly w/ WCAG 2.0?
> - Would co-release strengthen message, or dilute/confuse message?
>
> Regards,
> ~ Shawn & Judy
>
> ===
>
> IRC reminders and tips:
> - IRC is supplemental to the call. Some participants do not have IRC.  
> All substantive comments should be said verbally in the call (not just  
> in IRC).
> - to type a side comment that will _not_ get recorded in the minutes,  
> type /me comment - e.g.:
> /me hopes everyone had pleasant holidays
> will come out:
> *shawn hopes everyone had pleasant holidays
>
> Teleconference information:
> - Managing IRC for EOWG meeting minutes:  
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/template.html
> - W3C Zakim Teleconference Bridge: http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> - Zakim IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot
> - A source for help with IRC (Internet Relay Chat):  
> http://www.irchelp.org/
>
> * Upcoming EOWG teleconference schedule:  
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/#meetings
>
> ###
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 09:30:22 UTC