This Wiki page is edited by participants of the WCAG Working Group. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Reviews

From WCAG WG
Revision as of 18:06, 20 April 2011 by Mjohlic (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Please review for the following things:

   * Are there typographical or formatting errors?
   * Is there missing content?
   * Are heading levels correct, in the single-page, by-technology, and complete views?
   * Are the references to success criteria correct?
   * Are references to related techniques correct?
   * Are there broken links?
   * Are there broken images?
   * Is the alt text of images appropriate?
   * Do any images require extended descriptions? If so, what should the description be?
   * Most of the techniques in the wiki had test files / sample files at the bottom. In our other technologies, we've been putting links to such files at the bottom of an example, not at the bottom of the technique as a whole. Is the location of the references to such files appropriate for each technique?
   * References to test / example files are usually in the form of "...working example of XYZ". Is the verbiage I pulled out of the air for "XYZ" in these links ok? Note it needs to be fairly distinct, not something like "this example", because of the need to have unambiguous link text in views that have all the techniques together.
   * Do all the test / example files work? I modified some of them slightly to fit into a standard approach.
   * Is there / should there be downloadable source code for the test / example files? This is what we did for Flash.
   * Are code samples appropriately formatted? I took them unchanged from the wiki and didn't run any "pretty print" process on them. What would be most useful here is a complete reformatted version, rather than instructions on what needs doing, which is VERY painstaking to implement.
   * Are test procedures self-consistent and correct? I tweaked them a bit for consistency with our other techniques.
   * Some techniques (SL5, SL13, SL18, SL30, SL33) have more than one test procedure. Does the implementation of this work?

There are a few things Michael hasn't yet done, in case you notice going through:

   * Techniques have pointers to the success criteria / Understanding document, but I haven't added pointers in the Understanding to the new techniques yet. This will need separate review when it's done.
   * There is diff markup that hasn't been cleared out yet, because I'm a bit nervous of the tool that does this... This won't be seen in the Silverlight techniques, though, because they're all new.
   * Language-specific terms just have generic emphasis, rather than more appropriate markup / formatting.
   * Advisory techniques are indicated as such in the XML but this doesn't yet show up in the HTML.

Silverlight Techniques

Sign up for the following Silverlight techniques (links are to wiki pages):

PDF Techniques

Sign up for the following PDF techniques (links are to wiki pages, ported techniques are in the PDF Techniques document: