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 18:28:07 +0200
To: "'Jan Richards'" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, "'List \(WAI-AUWG\)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032b01c5d8b7$edf29500$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>
Attached there is my new proposal for checklist, updated for the last draft.
Please check also the guidelines.html text: in the conformance section there
are some mistyping in "Relative Priority" Checkpoints :

...  (as defined in the conformance profile)).

Two )).


-----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 16:28:45 UTC

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