WCAG 2.0 comments/suggestions

   Thank you for considering my comments on the WCAG 2.0 draft,
-Mark Schult, WA State Parks webmaster

============================================================================
================
//These are the same items for this checkpoint, just reprioritized so that
level 3 has identifiable goals.//

Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content that can be expressed in words,
provide a text equivalent of the function or information the non-text
content was intended to convey.
Success Criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if:
1.	non-text content that can be expressed in words has a
text-equivalent explicitly associated with it.

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if:
1.	non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a
descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent.
o	The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author
intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended
information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if:
1.	the site has a statement asserting that the text-equivalent has been
reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended
for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information
and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).

============================================================================
================
//For Checkpoint 1.4, I'd recommend that rather than disallowing background
content behind the foreground content, that the standards require a
mechanism (via CSS or via HTML coding) allows the user to turn the
background off.  This is implied by the statement that "background picture
or pattern can be easily removed", but I feel "easily removed" is overly
subjective.//

============================================================================
================
//Level 2 or Level 3 compliance of Checkpoint 2.2 would seem to be the
avoidance of all time limits to reading or interaction.  Since this
condition is already qualified by "unless control is not possible due to the
nature of real-time events or competition", it seems that high-level
compliance should simply be avoidance of this technique as unnecessary.//

============================================================================
================
//I'd like to see Checkpoint 3.6 better define "error".  It seems that
unforeseen errors are the constant bane of electronic interfaces and
therefore one can rarely say with confidence that they've predicted and
trapped for every error condition.  Perhaps you also want to specify that if
an unhandled error condition is reported after the site is purported to
having compliance, statements asserting compliance must be updated.//

============================================================================
================
//Regarding Checkpoint 4.1, I suggest that Level 1 is the intent and attempt
to write "clearly and simply".  Level 2 is a statement affirming that such
an attempt has been made and includes contact information for suggestions on
improving the clarity and simplicity.  Level 3 could then be the delivery of
content in alternate levels of clarity and simplicity (that criteria of
course being problematic to gauge).

============================================================================
================
This revision has many excellent ideas and suggestions.
Thank you for taking the time to work on this project, -M.S.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 11:57:29 UTC