W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

May 23, 2003 Internal Working Draft

From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:16:35 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c32178$f96da350$9017a8c0@BenMobile>

A new internal working draft is now available at

The draft attempts to address a number of issues simultaneously:
1. It incorporates the reorganization from the May 9 Proposed Reorganization
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/05/09-reformulation-proposal.html) and
includes a number of changes resulting from discussion in the May 15 and May
22 Telecons.
NOTE: Checkpoints that begin with a pair of question marks “??” indicate
items where the group has not yet reached consensus about whether the
checkpoint should fall into core or extended)

2. It uses XMLSpec (http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/) as its source document,
improving our ability to efficiently edit, customize and modify various
aspects of the guidelines and providing greater flexibility toward
integration with related techniques, checklists and glossary documents.

3. It automates the process of numbering checkpoints (could be extended to
include success criteria and best practice items)

4. It includes some updates to the documents styling 
To-Do’s (formatting-related that I’ll be taking care of soon):
- clean up stylesheets (ex. reduce white space and style inconsistencies
around notes, exceptions and glossary lists in the definitions section)
- fix XSLT so that the generated Table of Contents is an actual list
- add numbering to repetitive headings?? (see checkpoint 1.1 for example)
- adjust headings to address open issue with headings (Issue #12) 
- add numbering to success criterion and best practice (ex. SC1, BP1, etc.)
best format?? (Issue #261)  
- update checkpoint mapping 
- update change history
- add cross-reference links
Review Items in draft:
Some of the items that followed the “this item has been reviewed and is
believed to…” model seemed problematic under the new organization. For the
purposes of this draft, some of these items have been removed and are pasted
below (see Removed Review Items) for discussion. These include items that
were in 1.1, 1.2, and 2.5 (new numbering scheme).

Some items that use the “review” language remain in the draft (slightly
reworded).  They can be found in checkpoints 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 in the new
Removed review items:

The following two items were removed because, except for the phrase
"reviewed and is believed to" they were identical to the item immediately
above them.

- (from checkpoint 1.1 [was 1.1])  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)
- (from checkpoint 1.2 [was 1.2])  the audio description has been reviewed
and is believed to include all significant visual information in scenes,
actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to the
extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track (and
constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional
auditory description).

The last item in this category that was removed was removed because all of
the suggestions it made appear in best practice and the text refers to
"effective and appropriate" methods, but does not explain what they are.

- (from checkpoint 2.5 [was 3.5]) the content has been reviewed and is
believed to have incorporated error prevention and recovery methods that are
considered to be effective and appropriate
Ben Caldwell | caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu)   
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 18:16:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:30 UTC