WCAG v2.0 comments

We're impressed by all the issues taken into consideration in the latest working draft.  Here are some brief comments on the process and structure of the document.

It would be helpful as the process moves forward to be updated about the timing of a "final product".  Since uptake on WCAG v1.0 is becoming widespread and implementation of new guidelines will have lead time, the ramification to new state, national, and international guidelines will be significant.  We're glad to see the benefits of accessibility listed explicitly and hope the EOWG will actively evangelize them.  SSB is committed to helping with this effort.

Regarding comments about the structure.  In v1.0 there seemed to be some redundant and contradictory statements (e.g., "7.1 Short text equivalents for images ("alt-text"); When using OBJECT, specify a text equivalent in the body of the OBJECT element" v. "8.1 Text and non-text equivalents for applets and programmatic objects; If OBJECT is used, provide a text equivalent in the content of the element".).  While this may be unavoidable, it would help to have these cases noted or nomenclature explained.  

Other comments:  We're also looking forward to more information regarding implementation, examples and even test beds.  Also, in addition to automated v. manual tests, there might be value in identifying one-time v. ongoing tests (e.g., "Note that if a frame's contents change, the text equivalent will no longer apply").  Finally, we would be interested in a framework for handling custom tags.


Marco Sorani
VP of Product Management
SSB Technologies, Inc.
(415) 975-8010
marco@ssbtechnologies.com
http://www.ssbtechnologies.com

Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 17:15:22 UTC