new open issues

BASED ON THE RECENT LIST COMMENTS 

I HAVE GATHERED THE FOLLOWING OPEN ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND RESOLUTION 

 

If I missed one - let me know.

 

I've given each on a HANDLE or SHORT TITLE.   Use that title as subject
if you post on these so they are easy to find

 

Gregg

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------

OPEN ISSUE:     PEOPLE VS INDIVIDUAL/PERSONS

When we get near the end and the text is more stable we need to  look at
the whole doc and use persons or individuals or people in some
consistent fashion. 

NOTE:  Does 'people' read better?   Do "Individuals" or "Persons"  tends
to highlight individual needs rather than group needs?   Which is more
important or more like what we are trying to do?    Is variation ok?
Better?  Dependent on sentence?

 

 

----------------------------

OPEN ISSUE:   WCAG 1 TO WCAG 2

 

 

Paragraph on WCAG 1 AND 2.0

 

Current proposed wordings.

 

----ALTERNATE 1----

The WCAG group wants to make sure that people whose content conforms to
WCAG 1.0 can make it conform to WCAG 2.0 as easily as possible. The
group is trying to make WCAG 2.0 clearer and easier to use for a wide
range of technology. But the two versions work from the same general
principles.

 

To show how to apply WCAG 2.0 for content that conforms to WCAG 1.0
there is a mapping from checkpoints in WCAG 1.0 to the requirements of
WCAG 2.0.

 

----ALTERNATE 2----

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working
carefully to enable organizations and individuals that have adopted WCAG
1.0 in the past to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0.  To facilitate
this WCAG 2.0 is being designed to be a clearer, less technology
specific version of the same principles found in 1.0.    To see how the
two relate please refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 2.0 Working Draft.

 

----ALTERNATE 3----

  The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working
carefully to enable organizations and individuals that have adopted WCAG
1.0 in the past to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0.  To facilitate
this transition, please refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0
and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.]

 

 

---------------------

OPEN ISSUE:  PARTS OF CONFORMANCE STATEMENT

Need to add the following to the draft  under conformance

 

1. The guidelines title ("Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"). 

2. The guidelines date 

3. The guidelines URI

4. The scope of the conformance claim (e.g. all resources maintained at
http://www.example.org/)

 

--------------------

OPEN ISSUE:     Definition of SITE

 

Suggested definition

For the purposes of these guidelines, a site is that body of web content
which the conformance claim encompasses.

 

--------------------

OPEN ISSUE  - 5 MAGIC WORDS

PERCEIVABLE / PERCEPTIBLE

OPERABLE

NAVIGABLE

UNDERSTANDABLE

DURABLE

Decide on first one - and adopt this set?

 

---------------

 

 

 

 

-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>
mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, < <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>