- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:00:24 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG, Here is a very useful and quite brief reference for the WCAG20 topic (issue #101). It is a summary of the requirements, and by implication some of the reasons, behind WCAG20. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wcag2-req-20020426 If you read nothing else in preparing for Issue #101, please read this. Some of the requirements clearly are similar to things that we are (or ought to be) considering. Some are purely WCAG specific. I found a copy of it on my laptop. As I don't have network connection as I write this, I can't say whether the "Latest Version" is any newer, at http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/ Regards, Lofton At 10:17 AM 10/2/2002 +0900, you wrote: >On Fri, Sep 27, 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote: > > But it would be good to understand the why and what of WAI's new approach > > here, and either confirm or modify our own approach. > > > > Do you want to pursue #1 below ("why")? > >I'm currently having a look at WCAG2 (even though I don't think I'll have >time for a full evaluation wrt SpecGL), I think I'll get in touch with >the WCAG group and discuss this with them. > >One interesting thing I have already noticed is the big difference in >the checkpoints between v1 and 2: >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/2002/08/20-mapping.html > >Much fewer checkpoints, much more concise, no example whatsoever (all >moved to the examples documents, etc). > >One issue raised in this document states: >"In many cases, several WCAG 1.0 checkpoints of varying priority levels >map to a single WCAG 2.0 checkpoint. How should we resolve the >difference? Could this imply that we only prioritize at the >technology-specific level?" > >Note that their approach for GL/ET has changed too, they now use three >levels: [ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#how-to ] > >1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Checkpoints >2 - Technology-specific Checklists >3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information > >What I find really interesting is that 2) and 3) are not big documents >including examples and techniques from different sources, but rather >bindings for/to specific technologies. Something worth discussing too? > > >-- >Olivier Thereaux - W3C >http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 20:38:16 UTC