W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2005

Comments on ATAG 2.0 WD 20041122

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:44:34 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

I appreciate the hard work by so many that has gone into producing this
updated version.

Below I make some what I hope are constructive comments.

The most significant is to identify and give samples of  meta information
that can identify the conformance claims and levels for the document.

  jargon:  Pg 2 This document was produced under the 24 January 2002
_CPP_  ?what?

Sec 1.1 . I presume the 4th bullet will eventually lead to the appendix 

Last paragraph  ...as readable and usable _as possible_  [for that diverse
audience] while...

1.2  ... Web content for publication.  ?deliberately excluding pdf, MSWord,
etc. which are sometimes made available on the web?

1.3 Success criteria  -- "any available equivalent alternatives"
Many tools will not have text-to-speech; will not let any response when
the display is off, will not be responsive without a pointing device,
will not tab-step through links, etc.

1.4  bullet 4  ...different format specifications _such as CSS_, use ...

Success Criteria 1: Nice idea for navigation by levels ?Are there any tools
that allow stepping through by hierarchy?

Success Criteria 2: Are there any tools that allow selection of entire
structure with its substructure?

2.4 pre-authored content

Success Criteria -- concern:  free or sold at a discount is often accompanied
by disclaimers -- you get what you pay for.  Such may not clearly identify 
any conformance. Metadata on it would help, particularly if the using 
author could learn of its content.

3.5 ...reusing alternative equivalents

If the object is from a database, may need to add a field for possible
alternative equivalents.

3.7 ...alternates... should be alternatives.    you don't mean every other!

Guideline 4

last paragraph ... seems to weaken the rest of the discussion ...
"Moreover, the effectiveness of the solutions are perhaps better judged by 
the marketplace than by a set of stringent requirements."

4.3 Success Criteria   ?These prompts should occur before [what would
be so prescient as to anticipate the author's intent?]
I expect you mean the author's trying to initiate use of a feature that has
accessibility consequence, such as insert image add alt="...",
or create table -- add summary.

Such examples might clarify your meaning.

For some "at the time " seems more likely to be following what the author has
done, at which time the accessibility consequences can be determined.

3.1.1   The longdesc    ... with rows labeled _bottom up_

3.2.3  Conformance

Where do you intend to make such claims? -- I suggest in metadata, and possibly
as well in the document content.

I have previously sent comments on the Glossary terms.

"We shouldn't be divided by a common language" is my old thought from when
I first made the integrated WAI glossary.

Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Saturday, 15 January 2005 17:29:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:52 UTC