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

RE: Getting ready to publish public working draft of ATAG 2.0

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:00:40 +0200
To: "'Jan Richards'" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: "'List \(WAI-AUWG\)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <030101c5d8ab$b543e4e0$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>

I'm trying to give a new "face" to the checklist.
Look at the first Priority 1 of "Regular priority checkpoints".
http://www.robertoscano.info/files/atag20/full-checklist.html

I think should be useful to have this solution with checkpoint but also
success criteria.
What did the group think about?


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Richards
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:27 PM
To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Cc: 'List (WAI-AUWG)'
Subject: Re: Getting ready to publish public working draft of ATAG 2.0



Hi Roberto,

I only commented out the checklist until it is updated.

Cheers,
Jan


Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> Hi,
> In part 1, there is no more listed the checklist? Did we need to 
> update the old one or will be definitively removed?
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jan Richards
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:59 PM
> To: List (WAI-AUWG)
> Cc: Judy Brewer
> Subject: Getting ready to publish public working draft of ATAG 2.0
> 
> 
> I have attached the ATAG 2.0 document that I have been preparing to
> publish as a public working draft. (hopefully for the end of the week if 
> the Technology vs Content Type issue is worked out, see below)
> 
> There have been a few changes that probably that rise above the level 
> of
> being editorial:
> 
> - the changes already stated in: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005OctDec/0010.html
> 
> - the status section has been reworked to conform with pub rules.
> 
> - section "1.5 Relationship with other guidelines and standards" has
> been greatly shortened and now primarily points to the new WAI 
> components doc.
> 
> - checkpoint A.1.? proposed in: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JulSep/0080.html
> has been added as proposed text.
> 
> - the "Note for Web-Based tools" have been moved into the Success
> Criteria box as "For Web-Based Interface Components" because they are 
> normative.
> 
> And as a bonus - I have updated the last call comment table to explain
> all of our responses to the issues raised at that time. (see attached)
> 
> If ANY of these changes is a concern, please send a message to the 
> list.
> 
> **********************************************************************
> ***
> 
> We still need a decision on Technology vs. Content Type! The biggest 
> pro
> for "technology" is that it is the term that WCAG uses.
> 
> At the moment all of the body text is "Content Type" but I won't 
> changed
> the glossary entry until there is resolution.
> 
> **********************************************************************
> ***
> 
> 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
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 15:01:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:53 UTC