W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2001

Fwd: RE: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:43:19 -0500
Message-Id: <a05100301b8430c18a379@[154.20.86.193]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish
>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:12:27 -0800
>Thread-Topic: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish
>thread-index: AcGEq9WEF5PUbmYjRQWI5HODpdBlZQAOy7hQ
>From:	"Heather Swayne" <hswayne@microsoft.com>
>To:	"Jutta Treviranus" <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2001 22:12:28.0294 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[6ADA8A60:01C184EC]
>Status:  
>
>Sorry, a project that was supposed to be finished last week slipped.
>
>1) my vote would be "Set 4 (Emmanuelle)" -- but I'm not highly
>passionate about any choice.  16x16 is just to small to really get any
>value, but I'm not positive it's needed so I'm OK with any decision.
>
>2) not sure I fully understand this, but I think option 3 is closest to
>what I believe.  The authoring tool could use a checker to identify what
>all text is needed (without first adding dummy text).  I don't really
>see a conflict between 2.2 and 3.4.
>
>3) totally agree, combine away.
>
>4) sorry, I know nothing of conversion tools.  So I don't feel
>comfortable weighing in either way.
>
>5) fine.  Never was really big on that whole English thing...  :)
>
>6) OK by me, but I don't have the time to write it, and I think we could
>release without it.
>
>Again apologies for the delay in response.
>
>Heather Swayne
>
>P.S. this e-mail was written using voice dictation technology so please
>excuse any "voice mistakes"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jutta Treviranus [mailto:jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca]
>Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:30 AM
>To: Jim Allan; Heather Swayne; David Senf; Marjolein Katsma
>Subject: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish
>
>Could you please respond to the following questions  by the end of
>today so that we can publish the Techniques Document.
>
>Thanks Jutta
>
>
>All AU working group members,
>Before we publish the Techniques Document to TR we need consensus on
>a number of issues. Could everyone please respond by Thursday the
>13th.
>The issues are as follows:
>
>1. Which Icons should we be using. To view the candidate icons please
>go to:
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/sources/techimages/icons/Overview.html and
>follow the thread "Au Techniques: Icons" on the list.
>
>2. We need to resolve inconsistencies regarding advice on default
>alt-text, for this please follow the thread: "Au techs/ ATAG errata
>
>3. We need agreement on the proposal to move techniques from 3.3 to
>1.4, see thread " [AU Techniques] moving techniques for 3.3"
>
>4. Does everyone agree with the proposed additional techniques
>relevant to conversion tools, see the thread titled "[AU techniques]
>Conversion tools"
>
>5. We need agreement on the proposed rewording of the required
>terminology. See the thread "AU techs - change "[required]" and
>explain it"
>
>6. Should we add the priority/conformance section? See thread: "AU
>techs ad priorities and conformance"
>
>Please make your opinion known by this Thursday. If I don't hear from
>you by noon on Thursday, I might follow up individually.
>
>Thanks Jutta
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2001 21:43:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC