- From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:05:25 -0500
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
John, Thank you. John M Slatin wrote: > 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. > 3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information > - "... approaches where they exist." should be "... approaches, where > they exist." fixed > Audience > - "... many different audiences from policy makers ..." should be "... > many different audiences, from policy makers ..." fixed > - 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? Added phrase with link, "In particular, Getting Started: Making a Web Site Accessible." > Authoring tools > - Delete first sentence, or rewrite to clarify that we mean (e.g.) > WYSIWYG authoring tools. As it is, it's a tautology. The sentence you reference is, "A large part of Web content is created using authoring tools." I understand your point, yet deleting it doesn't make sense and WYSISYG is too restrictive. I'm leaving as is for now, but will add an issue to fix it later. > - <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> > adopted. > 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> > adopted. > 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> > adopted > • 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...) > fixed. > • 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) > adopted > -<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!) > adopted > -<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> > adopted. > 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> > adopted. > 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> > another editor already caught this. text changed although slightly different from John's suggestion. > - 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? > already caught. > 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> > adopted. -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:05:28 UTC