RE: Request for feedback on Gateway to Techniques working draft

Gregg wrote:Thanks John,

 

These docs all look the same... 
[jms] Sorry, Gregg, which docs?  

Hard to figure out what all these docs are about.  We need to think
about this in general.

 

 

Specific to this doc - a couple quick thoughts

 

1) Possibly move the "sections referred to"  information further to the
right to line up with intro sentence? Or be inline with it ? or?
[jms] Hmmm. No one's described the layout to me so I'm not sure what you
have in mind here. 

Maybe just put them in line with each other  for example

 

Guideline 1.1   L1 SC 1

Guideline 3.3   L3 SC 3

 

2)  the word TASK is not defined and I think could  be confusing to
readers. 
[jms] Thanks-- does this comment apply to all the Techniques documents
or just the Gateway? We will try to come up with a better term to
capture the idea that "Here's what you might be trying to do if you're a
developer" 

 

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of John M Slatin
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:13 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Request for feedback on Gateway to Techniques working draft

 

I'm writing on behalf of myself and Tom Croucher to request feedback on
the new Working Draft of Gateway to Techniques for WCAG 2.0 published on
30 July. 

 

The draft is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-GATEWAY-20040730/.

 

This draft treats only Guideline 1.1 and is not complete (for example,
there is no discussion of how to describe complex images such as charts,
graphs, maps, etc., or works of visual art, as required under Level 1;
and there is no discussion of the Level 3 requirement to provide a text
transcript for multimedia that includes both the caption-text and
transcriptions of all audio description).

 

Despite this incompleteness, the draft does serve to indicate the
general approach we're taking in this document. But before we go much
farther, it would help us to get some feedback from the list: 

 

The Gateway document is meant to help people move from the high-level
principles and success criteria specified in WCAG 2.0 to the detailed
tips on implementation in the technology-specific Techniques documents
(such as HTML and CSS Techniques).  Given this role, does the 30 July
Working Draft of Gateway address the *kinds* of issues you would expect?
Is the document clear and understandable? Does the general approach seem
to make sense?

 

If your answer to any of those questions is "No," please help us out by
explaining the problem(s) as you see it (them) and, if you can, suggest
what would work better.

 

Thanks very much!

 

John and Tom


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web  <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/