WCAG 2.0 usage scenarios

Richard and Matt,

Based on our discussion last week about WCAG 2.0, I created the following 
skeleton of a document, "Usage Scenarios for WCAG 2.0." [1]  It is very rough.

WCAG WG,
Would you find something like this useful?  My goal is to help us meet our 
4th requirement of "Requirements for WCAG 2.0" [2] - 4. Write to a more 
diverse audience.  In talking with people about WCAG 2.0 I have found two 
issues:

1. it is difficult for people new to WCAG to piece together all of the 
pieces.  They need a roadmap. Since the resources include those written by 
EO, AU, UA and some non-WAI groups, this might be an EO exercise rather 
than something I should do, although I think it is an exercise that will 
greatly benefit the WCAG WG understanding of who uses our materials and how 
the materials are used.

2. There are two levels of detail people may want at the technology 
level.  Currently the "HTML rules" are phrased as, "Use the TITLE element 
to describe the document."  Some people would rather see a testable 
statement such as, "Check that each HTML element has a TITLE 
element."  Matt has me thinking that we might want both types of 
statements.  It is similar to the level of detail at the checkpoint/success 
criteria level of the guidelines, but technology-specific.

A group of us took an action item to address the second point.  I began 
working on a proposal, but mostly documented background. [3]

In conclusion,
1. Is it helpful to complete the exercise begun at [1]?
2. Is it helpful to create a roadmap of how the pieces of WCAG 2.0 fit 
together?  Will a roadmap help WCAG WG move forward on WCAG 2.0?
3. How do people feel about two levels of detailed statements at the 
technology-specific level?  Any reactions to [3]?

Best,
--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/09/authoring-scenarios.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/#audience
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/09/tech-check.html

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 18:50:31 UTC