- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:04:33 -0500
- To: public-digipub@w3.org, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is an individual review of the draft of Digital Publishing Accessibility Note, triggered by the review request to the WCAG WG but not vetted through the group. I have two overall suggestions. First, each of the sections starts with one or more suggestions, then goes into use comments and use cases. I would find it much easier to understand if the suggestions were presented *after* the comments and use cases, which basically build the case for the suggestion. The second comment is more substantial. I find it quite awkward that a document apparently intended to be published to TR essentially says what other W3C specifications should do. I see suggestions aimed at ATAG, WCAG, and UAAG, that don't necessarily fit well within current work of those WGs. Publishing this to TR in this form I think sends an awkward message to the public about how our WGs work together. The suggestions themselves are all good ones, I'm just concerned about the "You should do X" style of presentation. I think the document should be recast as a use cases and gap analysis, which is what a number of other groups are doing. The suggestions for filling the gaps can be included, just in more general wording like "authoring guidance is needed about ..." or "user agents should do ...". That comes across in a manner that will read better by the public, and that in turn the WCAG and other groups can more easily add to their requirements for future work. It will also be useful for the DPub Accessibility Task Force and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group to hold a joint meeting. This would help to bring the groups a common understanding about needs, and about how we might be able to meet those needs in the context of current work plans. Michael
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 18:04:31 UTC