W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Call for Review: WCAG 2.0 Techniques Draft Updates

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:16:37 +0000
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
CC: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Message-ID: <E3F8024C-C6F6-479A-BCD8-93F8D2894BCD@adobe.com>
Chaals,



On 2/3/16, 20:41, "Chaals McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

>These are sort of helpful, but I'd actually appreciate pointers to the  
>changes. In the 3000-page techniques, I counted 5, and the changes seem to  
>take more time to work out from the available documents than it will take  
>me to write them up for the rest of the world.

You’re right, it is difficult with the many pages.  We will include a link to the github “compare” view in the future, which won’t help everyone as it is looking at the XML sources, but there is information about the changes entered as descriptions for the various commits that constitute the differences between the current working draft and the master branch.

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/compare/Working-Branch-for-Q1-2016 

>You can make Pull Requests to http://guthub/com/w3c/wcag but there is a  
>request not to do so in the README and a complex build system, you can use  
>the form at https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/onlineform or just send  
>email to public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Right, we would need to make sure to point people to the right branch, which seems to be the issue you found.  If you did know to look at the current working branch it would welcome your comments there through February 10, 2016.  https://github.com/w3c/wcag/tree/Working-Branch-for-Q1-2016 

>In particular it would have helped because it took me about 5 minutes of  
>chasing to discover that it is hard to understand how to make a simple  
>edit, given the now-unusual method for constructing the Techniques  
>document).

Ha!  The process has always been unusual, at least since I joined the group.  We have discussed restructuring how the techniques are authored and generated, but haven’t had the time to get that project moving. 

>All whinging aside, thank you for the updates. I'll work through them and  
>provide comments as requested.

Always welcome. The next public review (for the September publication date) will be in July, but we accept comments/pull requests 24/7/365.

AWK
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2016 14:17:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 4 February 2016 14:17:09 UTC