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: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:12:41 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Thanks for your hard work on this document.  I have two points for 
discussion, first a general concern, and then a point on "content-type" and 
"technology" debate..


Point 1: General Concern:

My main concern is that it has been almost a year since the release of the 
last public working draft (was dated November 22, 2004), and this latest 
public working draft represents a substantial (in my opinion) reworking of 
the earlier public working draft.  Thus, I think that a more detailed 
explanation of the rationale or motivation for such extensive changes to 
the earlier working draft (as well as a possible listing in more detail of 
the changes from the earlier public working draft) should be added, perhaps 
in the "Status" section (where there is a very brief reference to the 
"fairly extensive" changes" and "new set of requirements", but I think more 
is needed).   The reason why I think more is needed is that the public 
needs to understanding the evolution in Authoring Tools specification and 
requirements to appreciate the progression of the ATAG working drafts for 
possible future acceptance as ATAG Guidelines.   This way, when a member of 
the public has the two working drafts "side by side", an informed 
comparison may be made to "make sense", as to not only what changed between 
the two but why it changed.

End of Point 

Point 2: "Content Type" vs. "Technology"

For the "content-type" vs "technology" discussion, I did locate a 
definition of "content-type" in the context of HTML [1].

I think we need to decide exactly what term(s) we want to use in context of 
authoring tools, by first considering the available definitions of terms, 
and then determining which (or both?) may apply appropriately and correctly 
to the ATAG requirements..

End of Point 2---------------------------------------------------

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-content-type

At 09:59 AM 10/24/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>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:
>- 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:
>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.
>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 15:14:01 UTC

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