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

Re: Comments on ATAG 2.0 WD 20041122

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:04:47 -0500
Message-Id: <p06020409be131bc7e859@[]>
To: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Thank you for your very constructive comments and the time you put 
into reviewing the document. Your help is greatly appreciated. The 
group will carefully review your suggestions.


At 11:44 PM -0500 1/14/05, Harvey Bingham wrote:
>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 mentioned.
>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 Tuesday, 18 January 2005 20:23:27 UTC

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