- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:58:13 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3BFB7A8E@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
Hello, Attached to this message are drafts of "guides" to several success criteria: - 1.1 L1 SC2 (Wendy) - - 1.1 L1 SC3 (Ben) - - 2.4 L1 SC3 (Michael) - 3.1 L1 SC1 and L2 SC4 (John) In addition, there is a proposal for overhauling all of Guideline 3.1, which is provided here as context for discussing the other drafts. (I'll be sending the proposal and an issue summary to the list next week for discussion at a later time.) People who attended the face to face in Lost Angeles felt that a "Guide to WCAG 2.0" might be needed to provide a better bridge between the Guidelines themselves and the Techniques document. At the meeting we discussed what the Guide might look lile. It would be organized by success criterion-each SC gets its own "page," as in the attached drafts. People felt that the Guide should include definitions of key terms used in the SC; provide a rationale or describe the intent of the SC; explain how the SC benefits people with disabilities; and offer some examples. In addition, the Guide would present (or perhaps link to) what we've been calling the General Techniques, and provide links to technology-specific techniques, including both sufficient and advisory/optional ones. Wendy, Ben, Michael, and I each took a Guideline and developed drafts for one or more SC. (Becky was willing and ready, but I had asked her to work on 4.2 and we agreed that it would be better to hold off till 4.2 stabilizes a little more.) Gregg has been on the road or in the air, but has reviewed drafts at various stages. The common element for all the drafts is that they started from a basic outline that I drafted and sent around, then modified slightly in light of comments from people in the group. (I also sent the sample outline to people outside WCAG WG to collect feedback about whether the headings, etc., made sense; I'll report on that later.) Each draft takes a different approach. As a result, they highlight different problems and possible solutions. We ask that you review these drafts before Thursday's call so that we can get your feedback and ideas about how to proceed from here. Thanks so much. "Good design is accessible design." Dr. John M. Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
Attachments
- text/html attachment: guide_content-structure-separation-programmatic.html
- text/html attachment: guide_to_2.4.1.1.html
- text/html attachment: guide_to_3.1_l1_sc1_id_language_2005-04-12.htm
- text/html attachment: guide_to_3.1_l2_sc4_10years_2005-04-12.htm
- text/html attachment: guide_to_G1.1L1SC2.html
- text/css attachment: slicenav.css
- application/msword attachment: proposal_for_guideline3.1_2005-04-11_forlist.doc
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 04:58:38 UTC