W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: New Editor's Draft of the ATAG 2.0 Techniques

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: <44BBB20E.6090104@utoronto.ca>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Hi,

The changes that Tim proposes are more or less editorial so I have 
updated the draft in place at:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2006/WD-ATAG20techs-20060711/WD-ATAG20techs-20060711.html 


My detailed responses are in-line...

(and everyone else please have a look - the more reviewers the better)


Tim Boland wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your good work.  I agree that it would be good to publish the
> techniques with the Guidelines, to show that each of the success criteria
> is implementable by a sufficiently large number of authoring tools.
> Some comments follow:
> 
> GENERAL/TECHNICAL
> 
> Perhaps in the "Introduction", first paragraph, should add after the
> phrase "after following these techniques", "and thus this document is 
> informative",
> after ..., for emphasis, since the preceding point is an important
> factor in making this document informative.

JR: DONE

> The "Glossary" in the Techniques seems to duplicate exactly that in the 
> Guidelines,
> unless I missed something?
> If this is the case, would it be appropriate to just reference the 
> Guidelines Glossary, like
> the Guidelines success criteria are referenced (and delete the explicit 
> Glossary in
> the Techniques)?  This would keep maintenance
> of the Glossary simpler (not having to update it in two places - Guidelines
> and ?).

JR: Yes they are the same now, but they are maintained on different 
schedules so I think it makes sense to have a technique version.


> MINOR NOTE:  I got slightly different formatting for the diagrams in
> the Glossary in the Techniques than in the Guidelines - Interesting!).

JR: I think I have fixed this - please let me know.


> There are no General Techniques for the Checkpoints in Part B, like there
> are for Part A.  Is this by design or deliberate?

JR: By accident I guess. Part A does tend to be more general than Part B.


> MINOR/TYPO
> 
> In A.1.1, perhaps add "meet" (missing word?) between "serve to" and 
> "success criteria"

DONE

> In A.1.4, "to" instead of "too" (typo?) in "Applicability"

DONE

> In B.2.2-2, "advisory" comes before "sufficient" techniques.  Perhaps
> "sufficient" should always come first if possible?

DONE

Cheers,
Jan
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 15:52:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT