This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2582 LC-2583 LC-2584 LC-2595 LC-2596 LC-2601 LC-2605 LC-2610 LC-2611 LC-2612 LC-2613 LC-2619 LC-2620 LC-2622 LC-2625 LC-2626 LC-2627 LC-2628 LC-2631 LC-2632 LC-2646 LC-2647 LC-2648 LC-2683 LC-2684 LC-2703 LC-2704 LC-2718 LC-2719 LC-2723 LC-2724 LC-2726 LC-2728 LC-2729 LC-2730 LC-2745 LC-2770 LC-2771 LC-2773
Previous: LC-2703 Next: LC-2628
It seems that there are some problems concerning different versions of techniques which might be confusing for users. Two examples: Example 1: * T3 (older version, Working Draft?): http://www.w3.org/WAI/PA/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/text.html#T3 * T3 (new version): http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/T3.html Example 2: * H69 (Editor's Draft): http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20090105/H69 * H69 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/H69) As long as users are following the links (recommendation -> SC -> How to meet) they won't come along other versions (working drafts?, example 1) or older Editor's Drafts. But if they come along through a search engine, there is no information about the status of the single documents as long users don't follow the link "contents" and scroll to the top where they find "Editor's Draft January - July 2009". Proposed Change: Adding a clear note about the status of older documents.