- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 00:21:32 -0500
- To: "'Olivier Thereaux'" <ot@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Good comments Olivier Will follow up on these with the working group. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Thereaux Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:10 AM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: WCAG2 draft - question and (minor) comments Dear WCAG Working Group. I have had a chance to look at your latest (public) draft. It is really a very good document, very clear and pleasant to read, my sincere congratulations for your work so far. The QA working group ( http://www.w3.org/QA/WG ) is currently authoring a family of guidelines documents ( http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs ) and will certainly be interested in your answers to the following question: It seems that your group has recently chosen to change conformance criteria scheme from using priorities to using levels. It is an interesting move that the QAWG would like to analyse (both with regards to the guidelines being written by the group and with regards to specification authoring in general - since this is the scope of one of the documents in the QA framework). I think that naming level 1 "MINIMUM" is a good move towards clarity (which is probably a partial answer to the question), and the "conformance" section of the requirements document for WCAG2 also partly answers the question, but the QAWG would be interested in knowing the full rationale behind this choice. ******* And now a few comments about the draft... (unfortunately partly written offline, with only a printout of the spec, so please forgive me for any mistake that I may make). These comments are mine, but some of them come from an analysis of your draft against the QAWG's "Checklist for Specification Guidelines" ( http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/qaframe-spec-checklist.html ). - A first question is about the (lack of) use of RFC 2119 vocabulary to tag strict and optional conformance to your guidelines. I believe you did a good job of tagging strict and optional requirements without the use of MUST MAY etc, and this mechanism seems to fullfill your requirement to be testable, although there is (correct me if I'm wrong) no machine-readable version of your guidelines and the spec is not authored using a structured grammar such as XMLSpec. In the absence of those (RFC 2119 vocab, machine-readable markup) I think your conformance section, albeit well written, would benefit from an explanation of this choice (maybe with a mapping of your presentation vs a "usual" MUST/MAY example). - Speaking of the conformance section, I have a small suggestion : for the sake of clarity, "you will have successfully met Cp.X at the minimum level if... you will have successfully met Cp.X at level 2 if - foo " could read "you will have successfully met Cp.X at the minimum level if... you will have successfully met Cp.X at level 2 if - you have met Cp.X at the minimum level, and - foo " I know that the conformance section is clear on this point, but I would however consider the proposed verbiage to be even clearer about the relation between levels. - In checkpoint 3.2, level 2, the use of "display" for any rendering device (visual, audio, ...) seemed to me as as potentially misleading. I may have missed other uses of "display" as a generic rendering device, or a definition of "display", but I think it would be better to not use "display" for any other context than visual. - The title for checkpoint 3.6 talks about "graceful recovery" from errors but the text for the 3 levels do not seem to include this concept. It may be a good idea to introduce the idea of "fallback behaviour", etc. - many guidelines are still quite HTML oriented, e.g "navigation bars" in Cp3.4. If one of the goals of WCAG2.0 is to leave HTML for more generic grounds, it might be necessary to move html specific checkpoint wording to the examples. Thank you. olivier. -- Olivier Thereaux - W3C - QA : http://ww.w3.org/QA/ http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2002 01:21:44 UTC