Re: comment on Nov 2005 ATAG 2.0 Working Draft

Thanks, Jan. I think that would be clearer.

Loretta


On 11/24/05 6:43 AM, "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Loretta,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. That's a good point re: A.2.1.
> 
> In Part A there is some disparity between the requirements on Web-based
> tools vs. non-Web-based tools. This is because a set of W3C approved
> requirements already exists for Web-based tools (i.e. WCAG) but not for
> non-Web-based tools. The group has dealt with this by bringing together
> a set of requirements for non-Web-based tools (based on WCAG, UAAG, and
> other works) but the result is invariably different for the two broad
> sets of tools.
> 
> However, it seems in this case that the requirements are more different
> than they need to be. Therefore I suggest we change the "For Web-Based
> Interface Components:" note from:
> 
> Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint.
> 
> to more precise wording - like that in A.2.7:
> 
> Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet success criteria 1 and 2 of
> this checkpoint. Browser functionality may be relied on to achieve some
> parts of success criteria 3 and 4 (e.g. Single-key access to move
> content focus to the next enabled control in user interface,
> Key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access to "undo") as long as the
> applicable user agent(s) are specified in the conformance profile.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>> I donšt understand how web content that meets Checkpoint A.0.1 satisfies
>> Checkpoint A.2.1 success criteria 3 and 4.
>> 
>> 
>> ///Loretta Guarino Reid/
>> 
>> lguarino@adobe.com
>> 
>> Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
>>

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 15:41:06 UTC