Edit comment LC-843 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1209 Next: LC-1021

Comment LC-843: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Joe Clark 2 <joeclark@joeclark.org>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006May/0119.html

The documents are unreadable

Every attempt has been made to make WCAG 2.0 and the related documents listed above as readable and usable as possible while retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in a technical specification. Sometimes technical terms are needed for clarity or testability.

In fact, at 72 pages and 20,800 words, the WCAG 2 main document is half a book's length and is studded with jargon. Informed people with no disability whatsoever will find it hard to understand. The Working Group has failed to deliver a standards document that can be understood unto itself without reference to two other documents (notably the WCAG 2).; Related issues: 735
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [EDITORZ] Discussed in the 26 April 2007 telecon: Resolution: Accept 582, 590, 644, 664, 689, 884, 1010, 1330, 735, 754 , 843, 651, 658, 1007, 1312, 1370, 857 as proposed http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/26-wai-wcag-minutes.html Same as LC-735; Resolution: We received a great deal of input on the last call draft and have made a large number of changes including a rewrite of much of the draft to make it easier to understand. We have also included a new quick reference document that provides a tool for practitioners who just want the bottom line on the requirements and the techniques for meeting them in different technologies. We also shortened the Guidelines document considerably. Here are some of the things we have done. Easier language to understand - Wrote simpler guidelines - Removed as many technical terms (jargon) as possible replacing them with plainer language or, where possible, their definitions - Eliminated several new or unfamiliar terms. (authored unit, etc.) - Removed the term Baseline and replaced it with â€œweb technologies that are accessibility supportedâ€? and then defined what it means to be accessibility supported. - Removed the nesting of definitions where we could (i.e. definitions that pointed to other definitions) - Tried to word things in manners that are more understandable to different levels of Web expertise - Added short names/handles on each success criterion to make them easier to find and compare etc. - Simplified the conformance Shortening the document overall - Shortened the introduction - Moved much of the discussion out of the guidelines and put it in the Understanding WCAG 2.0 document - Shortened the conformance section and moved it after the guidelines - Moved mapping from WCAG 1 to a separate support document (so it can be updated more easily) Creating a Quick Practitioner-oriented Summary / Checklist-like document - Created a Quick Reference document that has just the Guidelines, success criteria and the techniques for meeting the success criteria.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)