Re: Comments on 26 July 2000 WCAG 2.0 Draft

My comments scattered - look for IJ and CMN

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Part 1) I don't think it's a good idea to redefine the terms 
     Guidelines and Checkpoints. I think doing so will create confusion
     and I don't understand why it's necessary.
[some good reasons]
CMN I agree, as is probably obvious by now <grin/>
  Part 2) I think it's important to convey the following (either in WCAG
  2.0 or
     in a document central to all the guidelines):
     a) The WAI accessibility model assigns responsibilities to different
        parties for ensuring accessibility: authors, user agent
        and users.
A paragraph or two in the introduction, and the odd relevant note in
guidelines (or checkpoints, depending on your terminology)

     b) The requirements of the WAI Guidelines are determined by the
        Group based on (in no particular order):  
        1) User needs
        2) Technology readily available to users and authors, including
           authoring software, assistive technologies, operating systems,
           and specifications. Cost and feasibility do factor into 
           the requirements, though more weight is given to user
           in general. Making some assumptions more explicit will make the
           document easier to write and easier to communicate to readers.
Hmmmm. I think the requirements are a bit different. Things have to be
technically feasible, or there ain't much point. And then the requirement
should be based on User Need. Where there are things that depend on browser
technology, it should be clear what we are assuming as a baseline technology
- this is a specific discussion we need to have, to sort out what are the
principles we use to make the decision, and then what are the current facts
that lead to a current decision, and what are trigers for re-examination.
  Part 3) Organizing principles. While I'm at it, here's how I might
         break down the requirements (without indicating here which 
         responsibilities are for authors, user agent developers, and
CMN (I am plagiarising Ian's warning)  
         WARNING: The following organization and commentary has been
         jotted down capriciously and is subject to emphatic retraction
         by the author. Comments are welcome!
Well, I think that organisation principles are arbitrary. I would like to see
them remain reasonably close to the last lot unless there's a really good
reason not to. Although I am sensitive to the need for other groups such as
UAAG and ATAG to be able to find out what they are supposed to be doing.



Received on Monday, 14 August 2000 22:07:46 UTC