21 November 2000 draft of WCAG 2.0

New draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20001121.html
Latest draft is always available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
History of changes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/change-history.html

Note that I still have not completed my action item to clean up Checkpoint 
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.  It will require a complete restructuring of these three 
and I didn't have time to finish it up today.

Also note that there are several checkpoints that still use complex 
language that I have not attempted to simplify or clarify yet.

Within the list of changes are 2 comments:
1. Guideline 3 is growing. We could probably combine some of the 
checkpoints to clean it up a bit.
2. We use "style rules" "style sheets" and "style languages" should we 
agree on one term to use or continue using all three?

However, in this new draft are the following changes:
·       Changed the label on the new section in the introduction from 
"proposed" to "new."
·       Modified the examples for checkpoint 1.1 slightly to accommodate 
Anne's and others comments.
·       Note that the first example is illustrated but again it is not very 
good. I still do not claim to be a graphic artist. I have not illustrated 
the other two examples as I'm not sure if we should include them inline or 
link to them in a techniques document somewhere.
·       Also note that it includes text! This is based on Anne's suggestion 
that icons have text in them. This goes against the arguments for putting 
text in markup (ala the WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 3.1 arguments). This adds a new 
dimension to this, I will follow up in a separate thread on that.
·       Reworded checkpoint 1.1 to refer to "content" instead of "elements" 
and added "Non-normative" to examples per the discussion at the 9 November 
2000 telecon.
·       Added a definition in the glossary for normative/non-normative.
·       Changed the label on checkpoint 1.1 from proposed to new.
·       Changed the headings in the Intro from questions to statements per 
the 9 November 2000 telecon
·       Included definition of auditory description from checkpoint 1.3 in 
the glossary.
·       Reworded checkpoint 1.3 to include idea of "synchronization."
·       Added examples to checkpoint 1.3 per the 9 November 2000 telecon.
·       Reworded Guideline 2, dropped, "explicitly define significant 
structural or semantic distinctions in markup or in a data model." since 
this is checkpoint 2.3.
·       Reworded checkpoint 3.2 to remove a visual bias and included an 
example, per the discussion of the 16 November 2000 telecon.
·       In the 16 November 2000 telecon we realized we needed to use the 
word "style" consistently. The only inconsistency I saw was in checkpoint 
3.1. It said, "Use a consistent style of presentation..." I reworded this 
to "Use consistency in presentation...". Other phrases that include the 
word style
·       style languages (used once)
·       style sheets (used four times)
·       style rules (used once)
Should we choose one of these three to use consistently throughout the 
document?
·       Combined 4.3, 6.2 and 6.3 into new 4.3 per the 16 November 2000 
telecon.
·       Added a new 3.11 (previously part of 4.3 and 6.3) the 16 November 
2000 telecon. Note Guideline 3 really needs work. It is much longer than 
the others. I think some of the checkpoints could be combined and made 
easier to read. The note still needs work.
·       Reworded Guideline 6
·       Reworded Checkpoint 6.1, included definition of transform 
gracefully. per discussion at the 16 November 2000 telecon.
·       Added new checkpoint 6.2 based on Jason White's e-mail from 30 
October 2000.

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--