Fwd: Please review: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Working Draft
by Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg(at)idyllmtn.com>
||Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:25:32 -0800
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:12:45 -0500
>To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig(at)w3.org>
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer(at)w3.org>
>Subject: Please review: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Working Draft
>WAI Interest Group Members,
>The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) of W3C's
>Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) published the first public Working Draft
>of WCAG 2.0 on 25 January 2001 . This Working Draft shows how more
>generalized (less HTML-specific) WCAG checkpoints might read. This draft is
>not based on consensus of the WCAG Working Group, nor has it gone through
>W3C process. Checkpoints in this Working Draft in no way supersede the
>checkpoints in WCAG 1.0.
>This is a preliminary document, not stable or referenceable yet, with much
>work still to be done. If you are interested in comparing checkpoints in
>WCAG 1.0 with evolving checkpoints in the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, please
>refer to the Checkpoint Mapping . Feedback will be welcome throughout
>the course of document development, but feedback in the early stages of
>document development is especially useful.
>At this stage we invite comments on two mailing lists:
>- For any comments that you want to be sure are registered with the WCAG
>Working Group regarding the January 25th WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, please
>send them to w3c-wai-gl(at)w3.org by Thursday, 22 February, 2001.
>- For general discussion about this Working Draft, please comment on
>w3c-wai-ig(at)w3.org. That discussion will be monitored to some extent by the
>WCAG Working Group, but it does not guarantee that every issue raised there
>will be registered with the Working Group for formal discussion.
>The WCAG Working Group welcomes comment on any aspect of the draft, but is
>particularly interested in feedback on the following issues:
> 1. Are the checkpoints and guidelines in the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft easier
>to understand than in WCAG 1.0? Has terminology been used that is hard to
>understand? We realize that filling in the Glossary will help with some of
>these issues. Are there terms that are not listed in the Glossary that
> 2. This initial public WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not have as much
>explanation for each guideline as WCAG 1.0. This is partially because the
>WCAG Working Group has discussed a three-layered approach, with the first
>layer being more explanatory (what are the basic ideas about Web content
>accessibility, how can this document be referenced, etc.), the second layer
>being the guidelines and checkpoints explaining how to make a Web site
>accessible, and the third being techniques, tests, and/or examples that
>would help explain how to implement this in different Web technologies.
>What do people think about this approach? It might be hard to imagine since
>the current Working Draft only includes the second layer, but we would
>appreciate your thoughts on this.
>3. There are only 22 Checkpoints in the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft versus over
>60 in WCAG 1.0. Have we generalized things too much, or does it make it
>easier to grasp the concepts?
>4. Note that there are many open issues  that the WCAG Working Group
>needs to discuss, and that this is just the first of many Working Drafts.
>5. Other suggestions or comments are welcome.
>This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful to
>Thank you for your review,
>Judy Brewer and Wendy Chisholm, on behalf of the WCAG WG
>Judy Brewer jbrewer(at)w3.org +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn(at)hwg.org
Board Member, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/
HWG hwg-w3c mailing list archives,
maintained by Webmasters