- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of andrew.arch@visionaustralia.org <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:10:01 +0000
- To: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'EOWG Call for Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1' (Education and Outreach Working Group) for Andrew Arch. --------------------------------- Version ---- Which version are these comments for? The version date is on Slide 2. * (x) 27 August 2007 --------------------------------- Community or Public ---- First, a relatively easy question:The presentation talks about "Community|Public review, comments, and feedback..." and "Providing adequate time for community|public review," on Slide 8, Slide 9 Notes, and Slide 11 Notes. Do you prefer "community" or "public" for these? Use the comment field for any explanations. * ( ) Prefer community * (x) Prefer public * ( ) No preference Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): Community sounds like a 'club'; Public sounds more open. --------------------------------- Example of WCAG 2.0 providing more design flexibility ---- Slide 28 has the following examples of how WCAG 2.0 provides more flexibility for design: * WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 7.1: Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]WCAG 2.0 allows more movement within defined parameters * WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 13.6: Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3]WCAG 2.0 allows more flexibility in meeting the corresponding success criteria: Bypass Blocks: A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages Are these good examples? Are they clear and strong? Please rate each from the drop-down list. What would be another clear, strong example? Please put it in the Comments field. * Checkpoint 7.1 -- WCAG 2.0 allows more movement: [ 3 +++ ] * Checkpoint 13.6 -- WCAG 2.0 lists more techniques : [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): "WCAG 2.0 allows more movement within defined parameters" doesn't realy tell the audience anything. Eg 2 is much more informative. --------------------------------- Example of WCAG 1.0 user agent clause that's no longer an issue ---- For Slide 35 we want to give an example or two of things that were required in WCAG 1.0 that are no longer issues due to developments in technologies. Ideas: * 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. Are these good examples? Are they clear and strong? Please rate each from the drop-down list. What would be another clear, strong example? Please put it in the Comments field. * 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links...: [ 1 + (lowest) ] * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ 4 ++++ ] * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly...: [ 3 +++ ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 1.5 is in dispute 10.4 is good 10.5 - you should have heard the links that were read out in our workshop today - ran together and thus confused people. --------------------------------- Acceptance of WCAG 2.0 Presentation Directive Overview ---- Based on the current version, please answer below. Note that you can change your answer; for example, if there are edits later. * ( ) I accept this version of the document as is * (x) I accept this version of the document, and suggest changes below * ( ) I accept this version of the document only if the changes below are implemented * ( ) I do not accept this version of the document because of the comments below * ( ) I abstain (not vote) --------------------------------- Comments ---- Comments on the document, formatted as described above. Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): priority: [editor's discretion] slide number - many Issue - italics are hard to read. revert to standard text priority: [editor's discretion] slide number - many issues - many sides have text boxes and/or images. These are not accessible to a screen reader user - insert hidden slides explaining them (example sent Shawn). Alternatively, if the HTML version is fully accessible, then a statement is required to this effect, and stating that the PPT version contain material that is inaccessible. priority: [editor's discretion] slide number - resources (at the end) Issue - contrast is too low on the URL's These answers were last modified on 30 August 2007 at 15:04:41 U.T.C. by Andrew Arch Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/wcag20pres-easy1/ until 2007-09-05. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 15:10:04 UTC