W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Selecting & Using Software for Web Accessibility

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:51:58 -0500 (EST)
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202140949190.31499-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think this problem is about to go away - it would be a major change
and very significant amount of work if AUWG was to have a large, up-to-date
review section designed to be good as a comparative table on its own. I think
it is useful to have the explanation on the AUWG page of what the purpose of
the page is and why the reviews are the way they are, but I agree with Judy
that it is helpful to provide some context information in the EO document
itself.

Chaals

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Judy Brewer wrote:

  At 12:11 PM 2/11/02 -0600, Phill Jenkins wrote:
  >I also think that the point about whether the review is up to date or not
  >is in the review page maintained by ATAG, so EO should just point to it
  >with perhaps a small mention about the purpose that ATAG maintains the
  >list.

  EOWG had discussed this approach, and felt that if EOWG did not provide
  some clarification in advance about what to expect when people found the
  AUWG page, that people would come away frustrated and/or angry. This is
  what our previous experience has been with sending people to the AUWG area
  to look at reviews; they came back very frustrated. So EOWG felt it would
  be helpful to have some initial clarification in the EOWG documents. At the
  same time, additional clarification in the AUWG document would certainly
  help also. But finally, my impression is that some updating of the AUWG
  reviews is now happening, and this issue may be less of a concern in the
  future. There was considerable interest in EOWG discussions in having more
  information to point to in the AUWG area, to the extent possible.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 09:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:47 UTC