[wbs] response to 'EOWG Call for Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'EOWG Call for
Review: WCAG 2.0 Presentation 1' (Education and Outreach Working Group)
for Shadi Abou-Zahra.



---------------------------------
Version
----
Which version are these comments for? The version date is on Slide 2.  


 * ( ) 27 August 2007
 * (x) Latest: 31 August





---------------------------------
Acceptance of WCAG 2.0 Presentation
----
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
 * ( ) I accept this version of the document, and suggest changes below
 * (x) 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): 
IMPORTANT: I accept this version of the document only if the changes below
are addressed in some form, they do not have to be implemented.


priority: [required for this version]
slide number: 1
suggestion: consider explaining the purpose of the slides first, then
advise interested readers (who may or may not be presenters) to use the
notes section.
rationale: the slides jump right into the matter without explaining the
context and purpose of the slides. It also assumes that the reader is a
presenter who already knows what to do with these slides.


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 3
suggestion: consider reminding the presenters to read out what is on the
slides and not to assume that all participants can see the slides.
rationale: try to use as many opportunities as possible to advise the
presenters on issues regarding people with disabilities.


priority: [required for this version]
slide number: 5
question: what about other (non-technical) audiences such as Web authors,
project managers, and/or policy makers? Also, what should novice
developers do in order to learn and implement WCAG?
rationale: from this slide WCAG seems to be something exclusive and only
for very specific audience whereas I think the target audience is ideally
much larger.
suggestion: consider rewording as "WCAG is implemented by..." (rather than
"WCAG is for...") or something in that direction.


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 9
comment: I like it very much, especially the advice in the notes to use
the latest drafts and the additional example to use!


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 10
suggestion: consider a different title for this slide, for example
"Improvements through Feedback" or even "Tracking Improvements" (to match
the notes, see below).
rationale: firstly, the repetition of the title from slide #9 is confusing
but more importantly the slide content seems a little out of synch with the
notes. Not sure what this slide is trying to say.


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 16
suggestion: consider something more catchy than "WCAG 1.0 -> WCAG 2.0". Do
you mean backwards compatibility or transition support?


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 19
comment: I don't understand "easier to understand success"


priority: [required for this version]
slide number: 22
suggestion: consider dropping this slide.
rationale: I think the point is well made by comparing the text of the
provisions. This additional slide seems to discredit the effectiveness or
importance of WCAG 1.0 (besides the issue of having the "Bell Harbor" Web
site at every instance of this presentation).


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 28
suggestion: consider using the approach of slide #9 (using the notes
section to provide additional possibilities -a different approach could be
preparing the slide instances that can be deleted as needed).


priority: [required for this version]
slide number: 59
suggestion: consider removing "Accessibility != WCAG".
rationale: in many situations WCAG is the benchmark or measurement for
accessibility. I think the notes make it sufficiently clear that WCAG is a
tool to help implement accessibility.


priority: [editor's discretion]
slide number: 64
comment: the colors, especially "Web Content (WCAG)", are barely readable
(light blue is hard to read, especially on a projector).




---------------------------------
SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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
 * ( ) Prefer public
 * ( ) No preference

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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: [ No opinion ] 
 * Checkpoint 13.6 -- WCAG 2.0 lists more techniques : [ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 





---------------------------------
SKIP THIS OLD QUESTION [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...: [ No opinion ] 
 * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ No opinion
] 
 * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render
adjacent links distinctly...: [ No opinion ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 



These answers were last modified on 5 September 2007 at 20:14:03 U.T.C.
by Shadi Abou-Zahra

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 Wednesday, 5 September 2007 20:17:09 UTC