Re: Start of ATAG2.0 Techniques Review - my action item

Hi Tim,

re: mention of WCAG

Mention of WCAG will have to be revisited, but remember this document is 
meant to accompany ATAG as it was before that call.


re: Technique B.1.1-2.1

Wording fixed: "Providing at least one of the content types that has a 
content type-specific WCAG benchmark (referenced in the ATAG 2.0 
conformance profile) as the first option whenever the author has a 
choice of content types."


re: "resulting content" in B.1.2-1.1

Wording fixed: Ensuring that after transformations and conversions, any 
accessibility information that was stored in the original content is 
remains present in the resulting content, in such a way that the 
accessibility information is available to end users (e.g. is rendered, 
is available to assistive technologies, etc.).

Cheers,
Jan






Tim Boland wrote:

 >Started my review. Seems OK so far..
 >
 >From Editors' draft:
 >
 >Techniques B.1.1-1.1,  B.1.1-2.1, and B.1.1-2.2 - all mention "WCAG" in
 >"benchmark document" reference
 >  (I thought there was an
 >issue with this as a result of recent joint ATAG-WCAG call)?
 >
 >Also, for Technique B.1.1-2.1, first sentence, I would say "providing 
 >at least one content type that has
 >a 'benchmark document'"  instead of the language currently there (which
 >seems awkward to me)?
 >
 >Technique B.1.1-General.1 - mentions "WCAG" (see previous note)
 >
 >For Technique B.1.2-1.1, should we say "accessibility information of 
 >the resulting content"
 > rather than just "resulting content"  (if that's what we more
 > precisely mean..)
 >
 >Will try to continue if I have time..
 >
 >Thanks and best wishes
 >Tim Boland NIST
 >
 >PS - I will be away April 1 - April 6

Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 19:27:02 UTC