W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: WAI IG CALL FOR REVIEW: New Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Draft

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:01:35 -0500 (EST)
To: Jamie Fox <jfox@fenix2.dol-esa.gov>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902231641060.10835-100000@tux.w3.org>
Jamie,

thanks for your comments. The grammatical error will be fixed in the next
draft (due Friday).

The agenda may not allow for a resolution on the quesion of DTDs in the
next guidelines draft (due in a couple of days), and the issue of
extending markup is almost certainly going to require further thought and
revision. You may wish to track their progress through successive drafts,
or via meeting resolutions and the email list archives, available from the
Working Group's home page - http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU

Prompting for language is required in order to meet the Web Content
Guideline calling for language to be marked up. At the moment most
specifics which are covered there are not repeated in the Authoring Tool
Guidelines themselves, unless there are special requirements specific to
Authoring Tools.

I think the concern is addressed especially in checkpoints 2.2.1 - support
accessibility features, and 2.3.2 - make use of accessible solutions,
where necessary prompting for extra information.

regards

Charles McCathieNevile

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Jamie Fox wrote:

  
  CONTENT:
  Authoring Tools must allow some openness or variation in coding so that new
  code can be used.  (i.e.  HTML 5.0 can be written with a system that writes
  to HTML 4.0).  [FrontPage98 allows this while HoTMetaL Pro 4.0 does not.]
  
  Authoring Tools should place a standard dtd instead of a proprietary dtd
  (i.e.  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
  "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> )
  
  Authoring Tools should prompt for placing  language attributes.  (i.e.
  <html lang="en"> )
  
  GRAMMAR:
  In the following section a word is missing.  The missing word is marked by
  surrounding *** ***.
  "2 Ensure that content produced by the tool is accessible
  Authoring Tools are used to automate the low-level tasks involved in
  producing Web pages. The power of this automation can
  enhance the accessibility of the Web if ***IT**** is used to ensure that the
  code produced promotes accessibility"
  
  
  -Jamie Fox
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From:	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
  Of Judy Brewer
  Sent:	Tuesday, February 16, 1999 5:17 PM
  To:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject:	WAI IG CALL FOR REVIEW: New Authoring Tool Guidelines Working
  Draft
  
  WAI IG CALL FOR REVIEW: Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Draft
  
  The Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) has prepared a Working
  Draft which they would like the WAI Interest Group to review before
  publishing it as an updated version on the W3C Technical Reports page.
  Please review the draft, dated February 16th
  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-WAI-AUTOOLS-19990216>. Comments are due by
  February 23, 1999. Details follow.
  
  TIMELINE FOR WAI IG REVIEW:
  Please send comments by close of business US Eastern Standard Time, Tuesday,
  February 23, 1999, at the latest. Earlier comments are greatly appreciated.
  We will do our best to incorporate comments received by this deadline.
  
  WHERE TO SEND COMMENTS:
  Send comments to the <w3c-wai-au@w3.org> list. The AUWG mailing list is
  archived from the AU home page <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU> if you would like
  to view other people's comments.
  
  CHANGES:
  Changes made to the last draft are summarized at
  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/changes>.
  The major difference is the inclusion of Techniques, which are suggested
  techniques for implementing the Checkpoints.
  
  REVIEW QUESTIONS:
  Please address the following questions in reviewing this draft. Other
  feedback is also welcome.
  
  Specific questions for this draft:
  1. Should the Techniques be associated with Guidelines (as in the current
  draft), with Checkpoints, or with both?
  2. Are there additional Guidelines, Checkpoints or Techniques which need to
  be included?
  3. Are the priorities of Checkpoints appropriate as indicated (priority
  levels are defined within the document)?
  4. Are there Checkpoints which should be Techniques, or Techniques which
  should be Checkpoints?
  
  General Questions for the document:
  5. Is the document understandable and clear?
  6. Does the format/structure of the document work well?
  7. Is anything missing from the guidelines?
  
  THANK YOU:
  ...for your time reviewing this material, and thanks to the Chairs, Editors
  and Members of the Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group who have been
  developing this
  draft.
  
  QUESTIONS:
  If you have any questions on this process, please contact the chair of the
  group, Jutta Treviranus
  <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, the W3C staff contact, Charles
  McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, or Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Judy
  
  
  _________________________________________________________________________
  Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  Director,Web Accessibility Initiative(WAI), World Wide Web Consortium(W3C)
  
  WAI Interest Group home page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG
  Previous WAI IG Updates: http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/Overview.html#Updates
  Unsubscribe? Send "unsubscribe" subject line: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
  Questions? http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/Overview.html#Uselist or wai@w3.org
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 1999 17:02:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT