Notes on WCAG 2.0 16 November internal (introductory material only)

Heare are suggested changes to the introductory material as I find it in
the 16 November internal working draft. I believe that all these
suggestions are purely editorial and do not affect the substance of the
statements made. None of these is a show-stopper, though it would be
nice if we could correct all instances where the word "criteria" is
misused as a singular (the correct singular form is "criterion";
"criteria" is plural), and it would be nice if we could correct the
grammatical mistakes in the descriptions of the Level 1 and 2 success
criteria.
 
John
 
 
3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information
- "... approaches where they exist." should be "... approaches, where
they exist."
 
Audience
- "... many different audiences from policy makers ..." should be "...
many different audiences, from policy makers ..."
- First readers are referred to the work of the EO group, but there are
no links to anything about WCAG 2.0 on the referenced page. Add a note
to say that, so people don't go on a wild goose chase?
 
Authoring tools
- Delete first sentence, or rewrite to clarify that we mean (e.g.)
WYSIWYG authoring tools. As it is, it's a tautology.
 
- <current>
We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider the
conformance to the
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
when selecting tools.
</current>
<proposed>
We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider
conformance to the
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as a criterion
when selecting tools.
</proposed>
 
Scope
- <current>
In general, the guidelines do not include standard usability
recommendations except where they
have specific ramifications for accessibility beyond standard usability
impacts.
</current>
<proposed>
In general, the guidelines do not include standard usability
recommendations except where they
have specific ramifications for accessibility.
</proposed>
 
Baseline editor's note
-<current>
help make up for common shortcomings of content authors
</current>
<proposed>
help make up for common errors by content authors
</proposed>
 
* Level 1 success criteria:
-current>
2. Can be reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</current>
<proposed>
2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</proposed> (Note: this has been pointed out many times before and the
mistake keeps coming back...)
 
 
* Level 2 success criteria:
-<current>
B. recommends content and/or presentation that provides direct
accessibility without requiring users or their user agents to do
anything different from
users without disabilities
</current>
<proposed>
B. recommending content and/or presentation that provides direct
accessibility without requiring users who have disabilities or their
user agents to do anything different from
users without disabilities or their user agents
</proposed> (Note: this is grammatically better than the current
wording, but the pronoun references are ambiguous and will need to be
fixed)
 
-<current>
2. Can be reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</current>
<proposed>
2. Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</proposed> (Note: same as above. This has been corrected previously but
keeps coming back!)
 
-<current>
Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels assigned
to each criteria, a square bracket notation is included at the end of
each criteria.
</current>
<proposed>
Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels assigned
to each criterion, a square bracket notation is included at the end of
each criterion.
</proposed>
 
Conformance Claims
-<current>
identifying the
delivery units
of which the claim is made. A resource conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given
conformance level only if all content provided by that resource so
conforms.
</current>
<proposed>
identifying the
delivery units
for which the claim is made. A resource conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a given
conformance level only if all content provided by that resource so
conforms.
</proposed>
 
 
Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0
- Note: this paragraph uses terms like "want" and "claim," but the
grammatical subject is "content< which cannot want or claim anything.
<current>
Content that currently conforms to WCAG 1.0 that want to transition to
WCAG 2.0 over time may want to capitalize on past accessibility efforts.
A qualified
</current>
<proposed>
Authors of Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0 who wish to transition
gradually to WCAG 2.0 may want to consider making  a qualified
</proposed>
 
- Does the last sentence of this paragraph belong *inside* the
hypothetical qualified conformance claim, or is it an explanatory note
by WCAG WG *about* the limits of that qualified conformance claim?
 
 
Overview of Design Principles
<current>
Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people
with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by bicycles,
people pushing
strollers, and people in wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible Web content
is beneficial to a variety of people with and without disabilities. For
example,
people who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions like
operating in a noisy environment where they can not hear well or at all,
or driving
their car where their eyes are busy would benefit from a accessible
content. Likewise, a search engine can find a famous quote in a movie if
the movie
is captioned.
</current>
Note: We have to fix this. First, we appear to be encouraging people to
use Web content while driving... Second the example of the search engine
finding a movie quote seems to contradict the following note which says
that these guidelines apply only to content intended for human users.
<proposed>
Accessible Web content benefits a variety of people, not just people
with disabilities. In the physical world, ramps are used by people
riding bicycles or pushing
baby strollers as well as people in wheelchairs. Similarly, accessible
Web content is beneficial to a variety of people with and without
disabilities. For example,
people who are temporarily operating under constrained conditions such
as extremely noisy environments or poor lighting would benefit from
accessible content. Likewise, someone using a search engine can find a
famous line in a movie if the movie
has been captioned to support users who are hard of hearing.
</proposed>
 
 
 
"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/>