Re: Mapping (Comparison) updates

I think perhaps it is a mistake to talk in terms of a mapping, or even
a correspondence, comparison or relationship. There is rarely a direct
match or abstract relationship between them. If there were then there
wouldn't be a need for a new version; the WCAG 2.0 document could just
say "refer back to WCAG 1.0".

I think that there is a problem with a table as there is an implicit
relationship between 1.0 and 2.0 which is only sometimes described in
a note in the 2.0 column. The main relationship people want to know
about is "I did checkpoint X.Y in WCAG 1.0; What, if anything, do I
need to do now?". Others are a change in priority, of technological
scope. I think it might be be better to abandon the table format and
simply go through the SCs one by one, giving observations and
discussing any relationships that are relevant rather than trying to
shoehorn the material into a two-column table.

I think that people initially may also want to trace the ideas
backwards. On reading WCAG 2.0 success criterion, they may want to
find out how it was dealt with in WCAG 1.0 if it was, and why WCAG 2.0
does it differently.

Hope this helps,

Alan


On 14/12/2007, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> EOWG went over a previous version of the "mapping doc" today <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/06/05-mapping-draft.html>
>
> Our suggestions for changes are at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/changelogs/cl-transition1to2#mappingtalk
>
> Let's talk to plan next steps...
>
> Thanks,
> ~Shawn
>
>
> -----
> Shawn Lawton Henry, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
> phone: +1-617-395-7664
> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
>
>
>


-- 
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Blogs
http://www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 19:39:46 UTC