W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Comments on WD-WCAG20-20020822

From: Brant Langer Gurganus <brantgurganus2001@cherokeescouting.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:43:20 -0500
Message-ID: <3DFA6288.7060108@cherokeescouting.org>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

  Status of this document

    * In paragraph one, the second to last sentence should read: "This
      draft is not yet based on consensus of the WCAG Working Group nor
      has it gone through the W3C process."
    * Should "W3C process" link to the W3C process page as it does in
      other working drafts and recommendations?
    * The "Issue Tracking for WCAG2.0 Working Draft" link should be
      updated to point to <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wcag20-issues>.


    * Aren't adjacent heading considered bad.  Specific example is
      between "Introduction" and "Purpose".
    * Under "How to read this document", the use of "read" is probably
      bad because not all people will be reading it.  Some will have
      screen readers, etc.
    * I don't think the first set of parentheses in number 3 under "1 -
      Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines,
      Checkpoints" is necessary.
    * The first "and" in item 4 is unnecessary.
    * Each of the 5 items should either end in a period or not end in a
      period.  Since they are not sentences, I recommend no period.
    * "2 - Technology-specific Checklists" should be "2 - Middle layer -
      Technology-specific checklists".
    * "1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines,
      Checkpoints" should be "1 - Top layer - Overview of design
      principles, guidelines, and checkpoints"
    * Under "2 - Technology-specific Checklists", "WCAG 2.0 Working
      Draft access guidelines." should leave out "access" to not be
    * In my opinion, "scripting" should be "Scripting" in the list of
      technologies under "3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific
      application information".
    * Should "(These will become active links as the corresponding
      working drafts are published)" be styled like a reviewer note?
    * I think the first sentence under "Audience" should be "These
      guidelines have been written to meet the needs of many different
      audiences, from policy makers to managers to Web developers to
    * "the document" should be "this document" in the following sentence.
    * Under "Scope", "The guidelines" should be "These guidelines".
    * "pages accessible in the next sentence should be "pages more
      accessible" because pages are accessible if they can be
      downloaded.  The degree of accessibily is the factor with which
      this document deals.
    * For "Priorities and Techniques", I think the levels should be
      "Level 1", Level 2", and "Level 3" or "Minimum", "Medium", and
      "Maximum" to be consistent.
    * In the paragraph before "Conformance", "(which remains stable and
      referenceable at this time)" would be better written to be
      accurate at any time as "(which remains stable and referenceable
      at the time of publication)".
    * Under "Conformance", I think "success criteria of every
      checkpoint" would more accurately be worded as "success criteria
      of each applicable checkpoint".
    * The comma before "or could do so only with substantial
      difficulty," should not be there.
    * Is it possible to claim conformance of Minimum and Level 3 but not
      Level 2?  If not, this should be stated that the levels are
      hierarchical.  If so, a way of claiming that should be mentioned.

(Note to self: Continue reviewing at "Overview of Design Principles")

Brant Langer Gurganus

Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 17:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:10 UTC