W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > September 2005

proposed update to "critical parts" of Guide Doc for G2.5L2SC2

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:57:11 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050926085712.02056390@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Hi, I attempted in the attached HTML file to summarize and condense all
of the comments received during the past week that may pertain to G2.5L2SC2
(thanks to everyone for input).

In performing this exercise, I focused on the "critical components" of the 
earlier draft I sent [1],
and made following changes made to earlier draft:

(1) only updated "key terms", "intent", and "techniques" sections 
("critical" sections) -
left other sections alone

(2) used "situations" as per Gregg's template [2] and made other 
terminology changes
to match this template

(2) used Andi's definition for "input error" (with input from Makoto and 
others - thanks!)

(3) proposed a definition for "user" (for the Guidelines Glossary)(NOTE: 
There is a definition
for "author" in ATAG2.0, and a definition of "user agent" in WCAG, and 
"user" is a "level"
above "user agent" in some sense in a "hierarchy" relating to content 
("author", "user agent",
"user (or end-user)")?

(4) incorporated Sofia's example as Situation A and and presented previous 
work as
Situation B, with associated OPTIONS for each and technology-specific 
techniques included
for both situations (both labelled with "A.." or "B.." to refer back to the 
specific situations).

  (NOTE: I included two situations for completeness, even though
they may be somewhat duplicative or at different "levels", and maybe only 
SITUATION A should
be kept since it seems more specific?).

If the situations are thought by the group to be sufficient and 
specifically applicable to G2.5L2SC2,
the next step may be to go through all the techniques and decide which ones
really belong.   In such decisions, what (objective?) criteria will be used 
to determine if a technology-specific
technique should be included?

Also, I have some notes in the text of the attached HTML file to indicate 
questions/issues I still
had..

Apologies for sending this so late, but I attended the W3C WAI Authoring 
Tools WG face-to-face meeting
Sept 21-23 in McLean, Virginia, and so was quite busy with that meeting..

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamc/2005Sep/att-0028/guidedoc1.htm
[2]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/09/end-to-end/text-equiv-informative.html


Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 13:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:47 GMT