Notes on WCAG 2.0 Core Techniques
We (Jenae and Wendy) went through the existing Core
Techniques for WCAG 1.0 to figure out where the pieces will fit in the
WCAG 2.0 model. Here are our notes.
Text Equivalents
Do away with some sections?
e.g.
- Content
negotiation - handled by server-side techniques?
- Structure vs. Presentation - handled in intro to checkpoint or in each
technology-specific document.
- If it only provides an overview, get rid of it. e.g. a lot of section
3. It it actually provides techniques (e.g. text equivalents) then keep
it. Some of the discussion is now covered by Benefits sections within
each of the checkpoints.
- conclusion that we seem to be drawing is that only have a gateway
document (like Techniques
for WCAG 1.0 or along the lines of the checklist developed at the
Linz F2F) and if want to provide an overview provide it there for each
checkpoint rather than in a Core Techniques.
- Automatic page refresh -
technology-specific
- Bundled
documents - handle in intro/gateway document. even in 2.0
anymore?
- Validation
section becomes a technology-specific guide to determining conformance?
Perhaps something along the lines of 3
Assessing accessibility of CSS with HTML in the CSS Techniques rough
draft.
Alternative pages
- now relates to checkpoint
5.4 in WCAG 2.0
- Is HTML the default for backup accessibility. i.e. if someone using SVG
and wanted to provide an accessible alternative would it be an HTML page?
especially, what if it were an SVG application (SVG animation,
scripting...) would they provide a static HTML page? Or depdn on user
request (i.e. Device Independence stuff...)
Questions about 2.0 success criteria
- checkpoint 3.1, how does this apply to SVG?
- the following minimum structure elements are present. titles on
major sections of long documents paragraphs
- checkpoint 3.3 - how apply this to web applications?
Comprehension
section
5 of Core Techniques: Comprehension
What about separate document for this? e.g. "Techniques for Comprehension"
or "Techniques for making your document easier to understand?"
Browser support
The section in Core is fairly worthless. It will be replaced by
techniques for Checkpoint 5.2 Design for backward compatibility. Determining
baseline capabilities could exist on its own and seems not
technology-specific. Refer to resources like the WebReview CSS
compatibility charts.
12 Technologies Reviewed for Accessibility
This section replaced by references to XAG for XML vocabularies. What
about other technologies?
13 Audio and Video and 15 Visual information and motion and 16 Collated
text transcripts
yikes, how did that section end up empty?? probably a mislabeling of the
headers...
this section will mostly be in the SMIL techniques, right? Perhaps also in
SVG techniques (related to animation)?
Move to technology-specifics with lots of references off to other sites,
e.g. NCAM.
$Date: 2002/07/26 23:29:14 $ Wendy Chisholm and Jenae
Andershonis