- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of jbrewer@w3.org <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:17:01 +0000
- To: jbrewer@w3.org,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 Judy Brewer. --------------------------------- Version ---- Which version are these comments for? The version date is on Slide 2. * (x) 27 August 2007 * ( ) 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 * ( ) 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): 1. priority: editor's discretion slide number and title: overview page (sorry, already completed that survey before I downloaded this) current wording: suggested revision: please indicate file size of downloads before link to download rationale: to minimize surprise at large files 2. priority: important slide number and title: 7: Who Develops WCAG current wording: "The standards making body for the Web" suggested revision: "The leading standards body for the Web" rationale: it is not the only one. 3. priority: editor's discretion slide number and title: 13: milestones current wording: curvy arrow suggested revision: do something else rationale: arrow looks odd 4. priority: important slide number and title: 25: More Design Flexibility current wording: too much text suggested revision: reduce text rationale: till then the presentation flows well, but the dense text on this slide interrupts reader's progress 5. priority: editor's discretion slide number and title: 35 Changes over time current wording: lots of text suggested revision: I tihnk you're going to reduce this from 3 to 2 examples, right? I'd support that. rationale: more readable [will need to send further comments later] [further comments submitted on updated version of presentation as available as of wednesday sept 6] page 8, embedded qu for me: WCAG includes... and people with disabilities page 12 and 13: even with the layout description, this is still visually confusing to have the blank bullets. I suggest that another method would work better. page 18: note to presenters (at bottom of page) runs off of bottom of page page 23: "remember that some success criteria still need human evaluation..." I think it's clearer without "still" here, since with "still" it sounds as though the need for human evaluation is only temporary, whereas this will always be the case. page 24 & on for a bit: several of the slides here have notes that overrun the bottom of the page, and it is tricky to try to view them; therefore I haven't been able to review them well. page 27: typo at "less restrictive that 1.0" should be "than" page 35: "Accessibility-supported technologies addresses that for WCAG 2.0." Hard to parse, and not sure what it means. page 42, 43: the layout descriptions help, but might benefit from additional tweaking page 46: I like this style of photos/illustrations, but feel that it needs some racial diversity page 50: Rather than starting with "One of the issues with WCAG 1.0..." which sounds ominously negative, I think it is more straightforward to just say "When WCAG 1.0 came out in 1999, ..." page 52: If there were a way to get to the Quick Reference earlier in the presentation, I think that would be very beneficial. Having it so far into the presentation means that some people may never make it here, even if they try to shorten the presentation somewhat. page 55 & 56: Notes run off of bottom of page and are difficult to access for purpose of reviewing slides. page 59: wcag not equal to accessibility -- I think that this sends the wrong message. page 63: or what are generically called user agents page 73: "Finally, note that this presentation is based on..." The voice is ambiguous here -- first it sounds like a note from you to the presenter, but I think it's from presenter to the world? request for an overall discussion question: are there any ways that the presentation can be shortened? I think that that would increase the likelihood that it be used. Overall, looking great. Thanks, - Judy --------------------------------- 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 an accurate description of W3C process. "Community" might sound like an in-group that some people are not part of. --------------------------------- 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...: [ 4 ++++ ] * 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly...: [ No opinion ] * 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly...: [ 5 +++++ (highest) ] Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): 10.5 was considered particularly heinous by some people, so this is a good example. These answers were last modified on 6 September 2007 at 05:11:29 U.T.C. by Judy Brewer 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, 6 September 2007 05:17:07 UTC