Organizing WCAG 2.0

Hi folks,

While I haven't read all of the WG email on this topic, I would
like to speak out in favor of a very simple model for 
organizing the WCAG 2.0 documents. The model (which requires no
additional vocabulary from what we use today in the WAI
Guidelines) is the following:

1) A checkpoint is a requirement that is general enough to
apply to more than one technology. One document contains
all of these checkpoints. It is called "WCAG 2.0." 
It should be short. You don't claim conformance to this 

2) For each technology the WG will be addressing (pick HTML),
create a document entitled "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML".
In that document, each checkpoint explains what is required
to satisfy it in HTML. People claim conformance to WCAG 2.0 
for HTML with a URI that designates this document. This document
would mention HTML elements and attributes by name.

3) Each technology-specific profile of WCAG 2.0 has a 
corresponding techniques module. There will also probably be
a core techniques module for general information.

4) It's easy to create a checklist to answer the question
w"What do I have to do in HTML 4 to conform to WCAG 2.0?". This
checklist would be a (short) view of "Applying WCAG 2.0 to HTML".

5) Priorities apply to the technology-specific parts of each
checkpoint. For example, it is a P1 to provide "alt" for IMG 
(required by HTML 4), it is a P1 to provide a "longdesc" for 
complex images, otherwise "longdesc" for images is a P2, etc.
There are no priorities on checkpoints in WCAG 2.0, just on
how to satisfy them in a given technology.

6) You can organize checkpoints in WCAG 2.0 however you
wish, though I don't recommend any deeper hierarchy than
one level, like the current guidelines/checkpoints 
organization in WCAG 1.0. In UAAG 1.0, we do have 
"principles", but they are part of the introductory prose.

Comments welcome,

 - Ian

Ian Jacobs (
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 18:15:31 UTC