Re: Comments on WCAG 2.0 Guidelines

Sharron, thanks for preparing these comments. I appreciate the effort that 
went into this.

I encourage other EOWG participants to read through these before our 
meeting tomorrow. I'll add some time for brief discussion of these, though 
we may not have time in our meeting tomorrow to go through all of these and 
also finish the other things on our agenda for tomorrow.

I'd be interested in other people's reactions. I printed out a copy and 
walked through it a few times. A few of the suggested rewordings seem (at 
least to my ears) like clear improvements; a few others I had to think 
about whether the meaning might be changed; on still others, you raise the 
general issues of consistency such as how much info on examples should be 
included in the guidelines themselves.

I suggest that we have some chunk of time, for instance 30 minutes (sorry, 
but we still have additional comment-processing time left from previous 
discussions as well) to see whether there are:
1) a few suggestions for simplifications that EOWG wants to specifically 
endorse;
and/or
2) a blanket statement that EOWG might want to offer along with its other 
specific comments to WCAG WG, such as "EOWG encourages WCAG WG to consider 
the following suggestions for possible simplification of the wording of the 
guidelines. We haven't reviewed these in detail and therefore this isn't an 
endorsement of each individual suggestion, but we encourage the WCAG WG to 
look at general patterns of possible rewordings, such as the use of more 
direct language where possible, and/or the exclusion of example language 
from the guidelines themselves."

Thoughts?

- Judy

At 06:04 PM 6/25/2007 -0500, Sharron Rush wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I am attaching my comments on the WCAG 2.0 guidelines in the spirit of 
>thorough review.  Some of the comments are likely to be wrong, based on my 
>incomplete understanding of the intent, but I was fairly ruthless in my 
>pursuit of plain language.  And frankly I couldn't always find a plain 
>language solution.
>
>Please understand that I have no attachment to these changes, and please 
>forgive the number of them that I am submitting.  It is only one opinion 
>from a person who likes things to be as straightforward as possible.  As 
>Shawn can attest from our informal survey of developers at the SXSW 
>Interactive media conference here in Austin in March, the wish for plain 
>language is shared by most (if not all) of those we queried.
>
>That said, I may have reduced the statements beyond plain in a few 
>cases.  Don't hesitate to reject these suggestions and thank you for 
>considering them.
>
>Best,
>Sharron
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sharron Rush |  Executive Director  |  www.Knowbility.org |  512 305-0310
>Equal access to technology for people with disabilities

-- 
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-G526
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 15:17:52 UTC