

Notes from Face to Face: Things being looked for in 2.0

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:28:11 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <005701c344f0$32ac5360$056fa8c0@USD320002X>

Notes from Face to Face:  Things being looked for in 2.0


At one point in the meeting, I was jotting notes as to things people were
asking for or looking for in WCAG 2.0.  

Here are the items that I noted.


1.       More objective

2.       Concern that it is too high level (WCAG 1.0 was more concrete and
easier to use.) 

(GV Note:  In asking them about this, it turned out that the checklists
would provide them with the type of specificity they were looking for.  The
discussion highlighted the importance of and need for checklists in order
for people to evaluate the usability of the guidelines because they are high

3.       They liked the bonus points. 

(That is, some mechanism for getting credit between levels.  With WCAG 1.0,
if you couldn't do one item in level 2, there was no way of getting any
credit at all.  Level 3 was felt to be unachievable.)

 (Note:  The idea of providing credit for individual points between levels
is still under discussion and a decision has not yet been made even though
it was cited here as an advantage of WCAG 2.0.)

4.       The guidelines appear to be based on user impact (and the user
impact is clearer).

5.       Important to have clear examples of what does and does not conform.

6.       It was nice that there were not too many Guidelines & Checkpoints.

7.       Terminology is clearer, but there is concern about making sure that
terms all translate well.

8.       Some phrases were hard to understand or translate.

 GV Note:  I asked representatives from each country to take a copy of the
current guidelines and walk through with a yellow marker.  They were asked
to simply highlight any words or phrases that did not translate well into
their language.  If they had suggestions for other words, that was
requested, but the key request was to have them highlight any words or
phrases that did not translate easily or clearly into their language.

9.       There was concern that the way we currently were talking about
conformance, only the required provisions in the core items would be adopted
into policy.  Possibly, the required items and some extended items might be
adopted.  However, much of the content of the guidelines is actually
currently listed in best practice in either the core or the other areas.  It
was felt that all of this might not be required and would therefore
essentially not be paid attention to.

10.   Finally, it was felt that the criteria for putting things into one of
the categories should be clearly delineated some place in the guidelines
along with other comments to help people understand how the guidelines are
designed to be used or any advice in use of the guidelines. Perhaps a "How
to use these guidelines" section.  
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 21:29:50 GMT
