Input from Karen for meeting

Hi

I have posted an ATAG20 doc with my comments interspersed at
http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/

I put in a background color to the class editornotes because I wanted my
comments to be clear whether you are reading it on the computer at the
meeting or on paper. It's not design prize material, but it is
distinguishable from the rest!!! I only wrote brief comments and included
suggested text in the ATAG20 doc. Further comments/thoughts are included
here - didn't want to muddle to ATAG with them.

Talk to you tomorrow!

regards, Karen

*   *   *   *   *   *

KM's Change list for ATAG20 Working Draft 20012004

1) I restructured sentences in Status. Moved a few sentences to improve
reading, but did not add or delete words.

* * *

2) Are we OK in the Status section with regard to rules about patents? In
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules - item 1.1.2.9: uses the term "MUST"
together with patents. I was bit uncertain so I just want to raise the
issue.

* * *

3) Cosmetic change: reversed order of "the" and "all" in Guideline 1 intro
text:

* * *

GUIDELINE 1: Ensure that the tool itself is accessible: This guideline
requires that the design of all aspects of the authoring tool, including the
user interface, installation procedure, documentation, and help files, must
be accessible. This entails following *all the* applicable accessibility
guidelines (Checkpoint 1.1) as well as other considerations specific to
authoring interfaces.

* * *

4) Shouldn't we change all instances of "user interface" with "authoring
interface"? Re: consistency? I'm on the lookout for other words posing the
same problem.

* * *

5) I need clarification on 2.6 Success Criteria:

* * *

Success Criteria: (updated 22 July) 
Any Web content (e.g. templates, clip art, multimedia objects, scripts,
applets, example pages, etc.) preferentially licensed (i.e. better terms of
use for users of tool than for others) for users of the tool, must conform
to WCAG.

It's the preferentially licensed thing that throws me. Isn't it an "either
you conform or you don't"? This preferentially licensed makes me think of a
loophole. Can someone give an example? 

* * *

6) Guideline 2.7 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the
tool. [Priority 2] 
Rationale: Markup that is not recognized by an authoring tool may have been
added to enhance accessibility. Also, newer XML-based languages, such as
XHTML 1.1, allow authors to include multiple languages in a single document,
via namespaces. In the future, documents may contain metadata, including
accessibility information, in another namespace. Authoring tools must not
remove or change [@@] this information when it is encountered. 

This makes me think of the introduction of standards not yet widely
distributed and used - perhaps used only by experience authors. Should this
concept of "the future and evolving technologies be brought it, or is it
implied here?" And does the "must" here need to follow RFC standards and be
<strong> or is it only when it is in a success criterion?

* * *

7) In my comment to "Specific consideration when providing this guidance"
just prior to guideline 3.4, I wanted to get rid of what I thought was
awkward wording. In writing, negations should be avoided if possible. 3.4
states what is to be done. The previous paragraph is a preface and doesn't
need to be that detailed. I am not saying my sentence is perfect! I am just
proposing it!

8) I moved the Rationale of 3.8 to 3.7 as it seemed to fit better there.
Guideline 3.8 suddenly gave me lots of problems. 
This guideline talks about modeling and examples - as separate things. I can
only interpret that to mean that yes, there should be examples of some
editing features, but the whole tool itself should be an example of
accessibility. Accessibility should permeate its very soul, you might say!

* * *

9) Clicking some Checkpoints listed takes to an unexpected spot in
Techniques. ATAG2.0 Guideline 3.8 takes you to tier 4! Ensure that the
checkpoint number in ATAG20 is truly the correct Technique reference. The
coding can be fixed later. 

* * *

10)  I was trying to get the feel of the updated doc with the latest
additions to the Glossary. As I write these lines, I did not add the new
terms to the Glossary yet. As we have agreed upon them in telephone
conferences, they did not have a high priority to be included in this
"personal" draft.

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 19:07:04 UTC