- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:53:45 -0500 (EST)
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
OK, might as well take this as official notification that the thing exists then. If I receive further comments I will pass them on. Tim, if you have any different conclusions to mine I would be glad if you cc'ed me or the qa list - you probably have a better understanding of specGL than I do. Which means the differences are interesting in terms of how an outsider understands specGL. And just by the by, the MUTAT tool, which is designed to allow people to run this kind of test and produce an EARL result which could be transformed into something like the HTML tale, or queried as part of a larger collection of RDF, is under repair by me. One of the test cases I am working on is SpecGL, but I could also do an ATAG-based version if you think this would be helpful. Cheers Chaals On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Tim Boland wrote: > >fyi - I also started on such an evaluation on ATAG 2 LC but did not finish >it yet.. > >>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:36:55 -0500 (EST) >>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> >>To: www-qa@w3.org >> >>Hi folks, >> >>I have looked at the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines last call >>document, and done a review of how well it meets the last call draft of >>SpecGL. The summary is that they conform to all but one requirement, and >>noted in the draft that they expected to conform to this final requirement by >>the time the last call draft was published. They also implement many of the >>good practices. >> >>I will be sending the review to the group tomorrow because it is late >>already, but if anyone has time to look over it and wants to comment quickly >>it is at http://www.w3.org/2005/01/cmn-atag-review
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 10:53:45 UTC