- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:15:32 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hi Tim, I agree with both of your points. With regard to the Status area, let's try to work out some text: I had: This is a Working Draft that succeeds a Last Call Working Draft. This change in status was requested by the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) because fairly extensive changes were required to the document in order to respond to the last call comments. In particular, a new section of requirements, Part A, has been added. Perhaps this could be changed to: This is a Working Draft that succeeds a Last Call Working Draft (published 22 November 2004). The status change was requested by the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) because the issues raised by reviewers during the last call period led the working group to make fairly extensive modifications that may require further refinement before proceeding again to last call. In particular, the requirements for the accessibility of the authoring interface, which in the last call working draft strongly depended on an ISO document, have been updated and expanded to remove that dependency. The new authoring interface accessibility requirements (Part A) that have resulted, draw instead from the concepts in WCAG 2.0 and UAAG 1.0. Cheers, Jan Tim Boland wrote: > 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 > 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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: >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > -- 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 16:16:27 UTC