Thoughts on the new Draft of WCAG 2.0

Thoughts on http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20001121.html

1. When you do GL{2}, CPs {2.2} and {2.3} could be swapped round. Markup,
markup, style.

2. Don't forget to include "However, ensure that the structural and semantic
distinctions are captured in the markup (checkpoint 2.3). " in {2.3} itself!

3. Are the techs. going to be built at the same time, for examples? It is
going to be difficult for people to know what we are talking about with WCAG
2.0, no matter how well written examples are always vital. Of course writing
techniques for WCAG 2.0 is going to be very difficult in itself...

4. Possibly create a separate summary list of guidelines for ease of
visibility (to put forward the basic concepts). I.e. a list of the 6
Guidlines.

5. Change:-
     <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
     [...]<body xml:lang="en" lang="en">
to the following:-
     <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
          xml:lang="US-en" lang="US-en">
     [...]<body>
in the source code of the document (excuse my pickiness, I don't like
looking at the word "color", it always looks misspelt to me!).

6. The source of {3.4} should be changed from
     [...]in XHTML use the Hn elements[...]
to
     [...]in XHTML use the h<var title="1 to 6">n</var> elements[...]
I almost missed that one! (Once again I'm being a bit picky, but it would be
ironic if the Accessibility Guidlines document didn't follow its own
content! I really wished that the XHTML 1.0 spec. wasn't valid XHTML...)

7. This bit is quite funny (in both contexts of the word):
{3} "Note: this guideline is applicable only in circumstances in which the
web content is intended to be presented to a human reader. A structured data
base or collection of metadata, in circumstances where the user interface is
supplied entirely by the client application, lies outside the scope of this
guideline."
I thought accessibility implied human accessibility, and that we were only
concerned with UI technologies? Even databases need UI outputs...this piece
of text implies that there should be accessibility guidelines for the
Semantic Web (a scary thought - we shouldn't need them!) In other words, if
there is no need for accessibility in metadata, then you can edit that bit
out entirely. In it's place could be a summary of the three checkpoints.

8. Here some outlines for possible strawman definitions:
- Content
The full markup and data within a document, providing the documents logical
structure.
- Markup
SGML tags and attributes.
- Presentation
The rendering style applied to markup.
- Semantics
=meaning. Semantic markup is markup with meaning.

9. I like the way that {3.2} now sums up the discussion between Anne
and myself:-
"If the default presentation of the structured content does not meet the
needs of your audience use graphics, colors, sounds, etc. to emphasize the
structure. For example, section headings may appear in a different color and
spoken in a different voice than the rest of the text. However, ensure that
the structural and semantic distinctions are captured in the markup
(checkpoint 2.3)."
But don't forget to mention that the presentation itself can/should be based
on the structural and semantic distinctions within the markup. I'm sure Anne
will agree on that *as long as* the section about using graphics etc. for
people with cognitive disabilities *remains* in the text.

10. !important! - Include a checkpoint about adding metadata to describe
regular data.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 19:08:00 UTC