Technical comments-WCAG 2.0 June draft

Continued from my comments of Aug 6, 2003
6. It appears that there is a shift away from accessibility for PWD to universal access in WCAG 2.0
Consider that:
i. Five WCAG 1.0 checkpoints including 3 P1 map to an extended WCAG 2 checkpoint 4.2 
about declaring technology/providing alternative content.
ii. WCAG2's checkpoint 2.4about navigation mechanisms maps to 13 checkpoints of WCAG 1.0 
some of which are P1 and some are P2. Checkpoint 2.4 of WCAG 2 is categorized as extended 
and not core.
iii. On the other hand, checkpoints 4.1 and 4.3 relating to language in WCAG 1.0 now have 
become core under 3.1 of WCAG 2.
7. I guess a developer or other user of WCAG 2 will be confused if he has used WCAG 1. WCAG 
1.0 tells him that certain things are absolutely necessary for accessibility and now WCAG 
2.0 relegates those as "extended" checkpoints. Then some that were regarded as only as 
desirable for accessibility by WCAG 1.0 have suddenly become core in WCAG 2.0.
i. Five WCAG 1.0 checkpoints including 3 P1 map to an extended WCAG 2 checkpoint 4.2 
about declaring technology/providing alternative content.
ii. Five P2 checkpoints make a core 4.1 checkpoint on usage specs.
iii. One P1 and two P3 checkpoints make an extended checkpoint 3.3 under Wcag 2.0 on 
content complexity.
This has given rise to an inconsistency and the first unresolved issue stated on the page 
for 
"Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft"
That is why it is necessary for the document to say why some checkpoints are core and some 
are extended. (see my suggestion # 2 made earlier) 
While on the subject, the single A, double A and triple A conformance levels are primarily 
intended to aid developers on focussing on more critical issues before tackling those that 
are only desirable as per WCAG, although all checkpoints enhance accessibility. Now WCAG 
has two categories core and extended instead of the three. These will also convey the 
same message to the developers: core are very important for accessibility and should be the 
focus of their attention. So this framework isnot a big change over A,AA,AAA or P1, P2, P3 
method of WCAG 1.0. So is WCAG 2.0 achieving a whole lot more by reducing the conformance 
levels from 3 to 2? And is it really a reduction when we consider that Core+N may be 
another level one can claim?
8. Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft 
There is a mismatch in mapping the checkpoints for 4.2 and 4.3 of WCAG 2.0. All WCAG 1.0 
checkpoints mapped to 4.2 deal with providing "alternate versions of the content"are more 
appropriately mappable to 4.3 which reads:
Checkpoint: 4.3 [EXTENDED] Technologies used for presentation and user interface support 
accessibility or alternate versions of the content are provided. 
9. Unclear : The checkpoint ref following every checkpoint [was**]. Does it refer to checkpoint ref under earlier draft version of WCAG 2.0? This should be clarified in the doc.
Thanks for your consideration. 
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc
11180 Sunrise Valley Drive, 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105
Fax: 703-225-0387
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *