[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 Wayne Dick.



---------------------------------
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.


 * (x) I accept this version of the document as is
 * ( ) 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): 

Editors Discretion:

Slide 38
Used for enhancement is permits dangerous freedom.  Like images with null
links, "purely decorative" is more reasonable.  Too often "enhancements"
are necessary for full appreciation of the concepts.  After all, if a web
technology is not purely decorative, why not use accessibility supported
technology.






---------------------------------
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
 * (x) Prefer public
 * ( ) No preference

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Public is more open and serious.




---------------------------------
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: [ 2 ++ ] 
 * Checkpoint 13.6 -- WCAG 2.0 lists more techniques : [ 2 ++ ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 
Editors Discretion
The flicker example though more flexible is not very hard in either case. 
In a way the example says, WCAG 2.0 makes easy criteria even easier.

I don't think the flicker example is representative of WCAG 2.0




---------------------------------
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...: [ 2 ++ ] 
 * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ 2 ++ ] 
 * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render
adjacent links distinctly...: [ 2 ++ ] 

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 



These answers were last modified on 5 September 2007 at 20:52:53 U.T.C.
by Wayne Dick

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 20:55:04 UTC