August 7 Draft Available for Review

Hi,

I posted a new draft today that includes a number of editorial, style
and formatting improvements. The bulk of the editorial work in this
revision focuses on the examples and benefits portions of the
informative sections for each checkpoint. 

Because we’re hoping to submit to TR in the very near future, I’ve
included a list outlining the changes I made below.

General changes: 

1. References to “WCAG 2.0” were changed to “WCAG 2.0 Working Draft”
where appropriate.
2. The Audience section now reads "…while still retaining the accuracy
and clarity needed in a technical specification." Was "…while still
retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in at technical guideline."
3. All occurrences of “web” are now “Web” (capitalization)
4. All occurrences of “technology specific” have been replaced by
“technology-specific” (hyphenation)
5. Technology Acronyms have been expanded in the Bottom Layer section
under How to Read this Document.
6. Success criteria are now all lower case
7. All instances of “ex.” have been replaced with “e.g.”
8. Occurrences of “AT” have been expanded to assistive technology
9. Benefits sections have been changed to bulleted lists throughout.(see
below)

Based on feedback asserting that some of the examples in the informative
section were too US-centric, a number of minor changes have been made to
make them more internationally applicable.

1. Checkpoint 4.2, example 2: changed Mt. Saint Helens to Mt. Pinatubo
and updated the date of the last eruption accordingly. 
2. Checkpoint 1.1, example 2: The widgets example now refers to shoes
3. Checkpoint 1.1, example 5: The Beethoven reference is now the Vienna
Philharmonic Orchestra.
4. Checkpoint 4.2, example 1: example changed from snowboarding example
to soccer
5. Checkpoint 1.2, example 1: changed alien to puppy and candy to crumbs
6. Checkpoint 1.2, example 3: changed clown slipping on a banana to
pantomime climbing a ladder
7. Checkpoint 1.4, example 2: changed acronym “RERC” to “W3C”
8. Checkpoint 4.2, example 3: changed soda pop to bicycle
9. Checkpoint 4.2, example 5: changed Jazz to music

Finally, in updating the formatting for the benefits sections and
converting to bulleted lists, a few changes to the benefits sections
were made:

1. Checkpoint 3.5 Benefits: Replaced benefits paragraph with:
     * Individuals who are unable to detect extreme changes in context
or
       may not realize that the context has changed are less likely to
       become disoriented while navigating a site. This applies to
people
       in the following ways:
          + Individuals who are blind or have low vision may have
            difficulty knowing when a visual context change, such as a
            new window popping up, has occurred. In this case, warning
            users of context changes in advance minimizes confusion when
            the user discovers that the back button no longer behaves as
            expected.
          + Using captions to note changes in speaker is beneficial for
            individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who may be
            unable to discern changes in speaker for audio-only
            presentations.
     * Some individuals with low vision, with dyslexia and who have
       difficulty interpreting visual cues may benefit from additional
       cues in order to detect extreme changes in context.

   Note: Providing consistent and predictable responses to user actions
   is important feedback for the user. This lets them know that your
site
   is working properly and encourages them to continue interacting with
   the content. When the user receives an unexpected response, they
might
   conclude that something is wrong or broken. Some people might get so
   confused they will not be able to use your site.

2. Checkpoint 3.5 Benefits: Additional text from the benefits section in
the last draft related to user actions and responses was moved to the
definitions section and reworded as follows:

   Common user actions include:
     * mouse movements
     * key activation
     * link selection
     * use of browser navigation buttons (e.g. back and forward)
     * opening new browser windows

   Common responses to user actions include:
     * loading a new page
     * exposing/concealing content based on mouse position or keyboard
       focus
     * displaying the contents of a menu (auditorally or visually)
     * displaying pop-up menus or windows
     * submitting a form

   It is important that responses to user actions be predictable and
   sensible to the end user and that interactions are consistent, both
   throughout the site and with commonly used interaction metaphors used
   throughout the Web.

3. Checkpoint 5.3 Benefits: Replaced benefits paragraph with:
     * Authors who utilize technologies designed to support
accessibility
       will:
          + encounter fewer challenges when implementing these
guidelines
          + avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to
            address accessibility concerns
          + avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for
            content rendered in a technology that does not fully address
            these guidelines

4. Checkpoint 5.4 Benefits: Replace benefits paragraph with:

     * Individuals who rely on assistive technologies to access the Web
       will be able interact with the content.
     * Individuals who access the Web with older technologies or
       alternative browsing devices such as PDAs and cell phones also
       benefit from the inclusion of accessible alternatives to custom
       user interfaces.

Thanks to everyone who submitted feedback on the last draft. Please let
us know if anything got missed or if there are additional changes that
need to happen before TR.

All the best,

-Ben

--
Ben Caldwell | caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu)  

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 16:51:50 UTC