- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:07:51 +1100
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is a good proposal. My comments: 1. Substitute "content" for "sites" throughout, except where there is a very good reason to the contrary. The term "site" implies too many assumptions about the scope of a conformance claim. 2. It would be valuable to have a clearer rationale for distinguishing success criteria that fall under level 1, from success criteria that fall under level 2 by reason of paragraph 1 a. That is, a provision which increases access to some groups of users by making machine-readable ifnormation available to the user agent, can come under level 1 or level 2 and there is currently no general explanation offered of how this is, or ought to be, decided. One suggestion would be that all information required to take advantage of user agent features demanded by UAAG Level A, should be at level 1 of WCAG 2.0; other machine-readable ifnormation should be at level 2. Variations on this proposal are possible, and, naturally, it is contingent on acceptance of the WCAG/UAAG proposal developed at the face to face meeting, which I strongly endorse. 3. We need to clarify how the range of URI's, hence delivery units, can be specified in conformance claims. While it would be reasonable to leave this open-ended on the footing that anything which accurately specifies the URI's should suffice (metadata, an explicit list, a description of the resources), it would be helpful to provide at least some recognized and supported ways of declaring scope by URI/delivery unit.
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 03:08:50 UTC