- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:52:55 -0600
- To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Cc: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
EOWG, please comment if you disagree with any of below, or have additional feedback. To Ben, Quick Reference editor: Thanks for considering EOWG's suggestions for the WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference. I think the latest version is significantly improved! Below is some additional feedback. HIGH PRIORITY, please consider for this version: * Add list of what is included and what is excluded, and display that when printed. I think it's important that there is a clear list of what is shown and what is not. In the current draft, a user could select/deselect checkboxes and not click the "Customize Quick Reference" and then what is listed would not match what is selected. Also, currently the printed version has no indication of what is shown or not (as least as far as I could tell). How about under "Your Customized WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference List" add a paragraph something like: <p>Technologies shown: X, Y, Z. Technologies not shown: A, B, C.<br /> Level Success Criteria shown: A, AA. Level Success Criteria not shown: AAA<br /> Sections shown: Sufficient Techniques and Failures. Sections not shown: Advisory Techniques</p> * Consider *not* linking the numbers to the /TR/ document (e.g., "Guideline 1.1" and "1.1.1") These links go somewhere that does not provide additional information. Also, they go to the middle of a document and so no context is provided about where they are. People may follow those links instead of the Understanding links, which do provide more information. MEDIUM PRIORITY, please consider for this version: * Significantly shorten the Introduction. Most people will not read what is there. It would be better to put only the most important information so that they are more likely to read at least that. Suggestion: 'This WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference lists all of the requirements (called "success criteria") from the latest _Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Working Draft_. It also lists techniques to meet the requirements, and "Understanding" links to descriptions, examples, and resources. You can customize the list for your specific situation by selecting which technologies you are using in your Web project, and the _levels_ and techniques that you want included in the list. See the _Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents_ for an introduction to WCAG 2.0 and supporting documents, including more information about this Quick Reference. Note that all techniques are informative; that is, you don’t have to follow them. <strong>Please see the _“Sufficient and Advisory Techniques” section of Introduction to Understanding WCAG 2.0_ for important information about the techniques.</strong> " * Change "ARIA" to "WAI-ARIA" This is important to avoid trademark issues, see Terminology and usage of "WAI-ARIA" at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-aria-docs#notes * Change the "go to show/hide settings" links. At a minimum: - Change them to something like: "go to "Customize this Quick Reference" section" or "back to top" - Take them out of the boxes (because they look like they are related to that success criteria) - put them only before the guidelines. Consider removing them all together. Throughout there are links to the Techniques and to Understanding, and I think it adds potential confusion to have more links. LOW PRIORITY, feel free to leave for consideration in the next version: * Change the first checkbox label from "HTML and General Techniques (always shown)" to "HTML Techniques are always shown" Having 'General' in there is confusing. This section is labeled 'Technologies' and 'General' is not a technology. Because the General Techniques are clearly labeled in the list, I don't think it's necessary to have 'General' in the customization at all. You could put "General techniques are always shown" before the 'Technologies' label; however, I don't think that's necessary. * Remove the brackets from the handles in the techniques headings, e.g., change "Sufficient Techniques for 1.1.1 [Non-text Content]" to "Sufficient Techniques for 1.1.1 Non-text Content" Rationale: Simplify visual design as well as screen reader output with punctuation set to be read. * In the customization section, make the group labels (Technologies:, Levels:, Sections:, Save Settings Option:) black, instead of blue. I think having them blue adds potential for confusion and adds unnecessary visual complexity. Many people associate blue text with being links. And in the WAI home page, we have a yellow section on the right where the blue text is linked. * Add brackets around [Hide Introduction] [Show Introduction] [Hide Conformance Requirements] [Show Conformance Requirements] Rationale: To make them stand out more like action/toggle buttons, instead of links that go to another page. FOR LATER VERSION: * Reconsider the customization options. It seems like it would be extremely beneficial to people doing very simple sites to be able to not show other things, such as SC relating to forms/data input and movement (blinking, flashing, etc.). Also, are these 6 (CSS, Multimedia, SMIL, Client-side Scripting, Server-side Scripting, WAI-ARIA) the best options to provide? How much do each of these hide? If only a couple, then perhaps not worth having a checkbox? ###
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 03:52:40 UTC