- From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:49:29 +0100
- To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
About "How WCAG 2.0 Differs from WCAG 1.0" [1]. ==WCAG 2.0 Supporting Material== "Techniques provide ... examples..." might be clear as "Each technique provides ... examples..." or "The techniques provide ... examples..." to indicate that they are actual existing techniques not just a general concept. In "customizable quick reference that you can use to create a short high-level checklist or long detailed checklists" could mention "selecting by technology, priority, or types of technique". The link "See The WCAG 2.0 Documents..." is misleading. Better "See overview of the WCAG 2.0 Documents..." ==Section "Changes in Requirements"== Perhaps say that some of the criteria in WCAG 1.0 have gone and new ones have been included. It might be obvious to us but not to others. Some have changed priority level. Others have been clarified. All have changed in some way or other. Perhaps a clearer title would be "Different and Changed Requirements." Maybe the three links are unnecessary here, one would be sufficient. Use the space to give more detail on what the differences are. ==Transitioning from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0== This section heading isn't really a difference between the versions. Perhaps a heading more in the scope of this document would be "How the differences affect existing sites". Maybe even "Conclusion: How the differences affect existing sites." regards, Alan [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/from10/diff.php
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 10:51:41 UTC