RE: Comments on WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's Draft

Hi All,

Some thoughts below...

1. Under the second bullet point description of what the Levels mean the
text "In general, Level 2 success criteria place more limits on visual
presentation and other aspects of content than the success criteria in
Level 1." sounds a little negative and may put designers off
implementing level 2. The same also applies to the text "They place
tighter limits on both presentation and content." in the third bullet.

2. "It is also not necessary to meet a success criterion using one of
the sufficient techniques. There may be other techniques which are not
documented by the working group that would also meet the success
criterion. When using such externally-provided techniques to meet WCAG
2.0 requirements, it is important that they be created by individuals or
organizations who are knowledgeable about the requirements of WCAG 2.0
and the needs of people with disabilities."

This feels quite subjective. Who is the judge of what individuals or
organisations are knowledgeable in WCAG 2.0 and PWD's? I understand what
the intention is behind it but wonder if it may leave implementation of
WCAG 2.0 techniques open to abuse.

3. A couple of us in the office read through it and then tried to
summarize it verbally to each other. Both of us struggled. While I felt
I understood it I couldn't quite articulate it when I came down to it
and my colleague felt she didn't understand it. That said this is the
kind of thing I would expect to have to read a couple of times in order
to "get it" and by its very nature there is an element complexity that's
difficult to get away from but the question is how much.

4. One question I do hear often is why are there Levels as well
Single-A, Double-A and Triple-A. People find this confusing. Wonder if
the A's could be removed and as the levels are not hierarchical agree
with Andrew that they could be renamed.

Regards, Henny 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sylvie Duchateau
Sent: 20 April 2007 13:27
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Subject: Comments on WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's Draft


hello all,
Here are some comments to the WCAG 2.0 Conformance section, Editor's
Draft at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#conformance

1. The priority levels and how to conform to each level is clear for me
now.

2. In the explanation of each priority level I don't understand the
following:
"In general, Level 1 success criteria achieve accessibility by
supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible limits
on presentation."
3. I also don't understand the following:
"The success criteria in Level 2 provide additional support for
assistive technology. At the same time, they also support direct access
to content by the
many people who use conventional user agents without assistive
technology."
What is meant with "direct access to content"  and what is meant with
"additional support for assistive technology".
4. Like Alan, I believe wrote, I also don't understand the following:
"For each success criterion, there is a list of techniques deemed by the
Working Group to be sufficient to meet the requirement. For each
sufficient technique,
there is a test to determine whether the technique has been successfully
implemented. If the test(s) for a "sufficient" technique (or combination
of techniques)
are passed, then that success criterion has been met. Passing all tests
for all techniques is not necessary. It is also not necessary to meet a
success
criterion using one of the sufficient techniques. There may be other
techniques which are not documented by the working group that would also
meet the
success criterion. When using such externally-provided techniques to
meet WCAG 2.0 requirements, it is important that they be created by
individuals or
organizations who are knowledgeable about the requirements of WCAG 2.0
and the needs of people with disabilities."

Regards
sylvie




 


-- 
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk



This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com

Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 12:34:58 UTC