Summary of WCAG 2.0 comments

From the 25 January 2001 public working draft. I took notes during the F2F of some of the resolutions, the rest are in the minutes from the meeting. (Wendy Chisholm $Date: 2001/03/07 22:49:42 $).



Comments by author

Graham Oliver - 26 January 2001 (sent to w3c-wai-ig)

  1. I would like to see the title of Guidelines 1 and 2 altered to read 'Design in a way that allows........' My reason being that the word 'content' is used to make an important distinction in Guideline 1.5 and has a specific meaning within that guideline.
  2. It took me about 10 minutes to realise that the title of Guideline 1 was different to the title of Guideline 2. Perhaps an emphasis on the word that is different in each title would be better.
  3. I found guideline 1.5 hard to understand. I can discuss this with anyone who may be remotely interested ;-) Another possibility 1.5 Separate content from the way it is presented By separating content from the way it is presented, the range of people that can usefully interpret that content is increased. The primary way of achieving this is by the use of external style sheets.
  4. I am confused about one part of Guideline 1.7 To me a style sheeet is an example of 'newer technology (that) is (/can be) not supported or turned off'. So having a style sheet as one of the technologies that can help mitigate against these circumstances really confused me. This may be helped by an example.
  5. I really appreciate the emphasis in the new guidelines on the 'end user'

Anne Pemberton - 10 February 2001

Guideline 1 should somehow say that the visual presentation must include illustrations , a minimum of one per page ... Perhaps Guideline1 could say: "Design content that be presented visually (images and text), auditorily, or tactually, according to the needs and perferences of the user."

Anne responds to william's post (in the Steven McCaffrey thread): that recipe is a good metaphor. The novice follows it exactly while the more experienced cook can make some changes since they are more aware of how different ingredients interact or how different temperatures create different affects.

Steven McCaffrey - 15 February 2001

Specifically answered the review questions in Judy's e-mail.

Is this draft easier to understand than 1.0?

  1. easier to understand: It depends what this phrase means. I may "understand" something without being able to perform a task because the term is not on a low enough level to be executed. What background knowledge is assumed?
  2. filling in the Glossary ...: Yes, it is not possible to give very specific comments without the definitions. if the definitions are critical to understanding the content.
  3. terms that are not listed...: Yes, accessible. In WCAG 1.0 the definition was " Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a disability.", which, logically, by the use of "someone" could be interpreted to mean "at least one". This is not the intent. Rather it should read: Content is accessible if it may be used by a wide range of people with various characteristics, technologies, and environments" or something like this. Some on the WAI IG list still seem to believe that if just some people can, potentially (if only they had browser x and screen reader y ...), access the page, then it is accessible. This is of course not the case.

What do you think of a 3-layer approach?

Have we generalized the guidelines too much (22 checkpoints vs 60)

Daniel Dardailler - 23 February 2001

Several comments about Intro (e.g., use of styles to denote edits)

I am surprised that


Broken links

Daniel and Dave Poehlman both pointed out broken links. Use of ID rather than A name.

Aaron Leaventhal (sent privately to Wendy)

$Date: 2001/03/07 23:08:02 $ Wendy Chisholm