- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:25:34 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hi Tim, Tim Boland wrote: > What is the motivation/rationale behind the proposed changes? > Consistency with UAAG/WCAG? Something else? The motivation differs for each: - calling out differences between Part A and B priority definitions => motivation is clarity. The change is only to sentence structure, - 2.2 intro text and 2.2.1 Claimants section rolled into a new section called 2.2.1 Conditions => once again the motivation is clarity. Previously there were a number of pieces of additional information (e.g. "Conformance claims may be published anywhere (e.g., on the Web or in paper documentation).", "Claimants may be anyone (e.g., developers, journalists, or other third parties).", etc. in two places when they seemed better displayed in a single list) - A new section 2.2.2 Conformance Claims takes a few pieces of info out of the conformance profile (this comes closer to matching the UAAG 1.0 structure) => here I took a closer look at UAAG and noticed that they have "conformance claims" section where the date and subject user agent are specified as well as a conformance profile. It seemed like a nice way to split things. It allows two tools to have different conformance claims (e.g. date, tool name etc, but to the same conformance profile) > I believe Wendy Chisholm posted the proposed details of a WCAG > conformance claim in a > message also.. I found a message from Wendy in April about this. What is actually in WCAG 2.0 now is scheme requiring three pieces of information: 1. The version of the guidelines to which the conformance claim is made. 2. A list of one or more URIs or URI patterns, identifying the delivery units for which the claim is made. 3. The level of conformance being claimed. I think our case is probably closer to UAAG's on this. Thoughts? Cheers, Jan > > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > PS - I can review the proposal from a SpecGL perspective.. > > At 12:16 PM 9/13/2005 -0400, you wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to propose some changes to the conformance section that >> go just slightly beyond being editorial. >> >> For comparison: >> Proposed: (see Conformance section in attached document) >> Old: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca/public/auwg/guidelines.html#Conformance >> >> Highlights: >> - calling out differences between Part A and B priority definitions >> - 2.2 intro text and 2.2.1 Claimants section rolled into a new section >> called 2.2.1 Conditions >> - A new section 2.2.2 Conformance Claims takes a few pieces of info >> out of the conformance profile (this comes closer to matching the UAAG >> 1.0 structure) >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Jan >> >> -- >> Jan Richards, M.Sc. >> User Interface Design Specialist >> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) >> Faculty of Information Studies >> University of Toronto >> >> Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca >> Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca >> Phone: 416-946-7060 >> Fax: 416-971-2896 >> >> >> >> > -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 20:26:43 UTC