W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: questions re: latest ATAG draft

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:30:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3FA27FFA.2B031DBF@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Hi Tim,

re: Checkpoint 2.2: I see what you mean. Does a format need to be able
to meet WCAG Extended checkpoints if the tool is only planning to meet
ATAG for the WCAG-core checkpoints (Note- the terms Core and Extended
may be changing in WCAG)?

(Also I notice that the Table of contents is wrong for this checkpoint)

re: Checkpoint 3.1: Good point. Perhaps: "Prompt and assist the author
to create content that conforms to WCAG". If we were to do this, we
would probably asl want to do the same with 3.2, which might be
rephrased as "Check for and inform the author of content that does not
conform to WCAG" and 3.3, which might be "Assist authors in repairing
content that does not conform to WCAG".


Tim Boland wrote:
> Hi, I'm going thru the latest ATAG WG trying to group the success criteria
> according to the
> conformance levels A,AA, or AAA to see how the criteria look and read in
> preparation for possibly
> developing some sort of test plan.  I noticed:
> Checkpoint 2.2 - This is listed as priority 1, but it refers to WCAG;
> should it be relative priority instead
> (to be consistent with other relative priority items that refer to WCAG)?
> Checkpoint 3.1 - This is listed as relative priority, but WCAG is only
> mentioned in the rationale; the term
> is not mentioned in the success criteria or in the checkpoint itself (as it
> is with 2.2, for example).  I
> assume that the accessibility problems mentioned in #1 of the Success
> Criteria refer to WCAG, but
> perhaps it should be explicitly mentioned in #1, as "accessibility problems
> according to WCAG"?
> I know the glossary definition of "accessibility problems" refers to
> WCAG2.0 in the second sentence,
> but it is an oblique, non-normative kind of reference.   Should we require
> in terms of testing that the
> accessibility problems mentioned be defined by WCAG?
> Thanks and best wishes, Tim Boland NIST

Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Web:   http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/jan/richards.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 10:29:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:48 UTC