Hi Tim, re: dependency of LC on the progression of WCAG WD: Our dependency remains. So I should have said our goal would be to produce a doc that can go to LC when WCAG does. re: distilling comments into issues and using a DB: There's a lot of overhead in that approach and we have a lot less support-hours than WCAG. So far, I think the comment table is ok. If this becomes clearly unusable we'll have to think of something else. BTW: I've attached the newest table which I will also be putting up on the site once I get an straggling comments today. (We could do a hybrid and distill into numbered issues in the table) re: the Techniques doc: I think we should be able to publish a draft in the next month or so. Though remember that all members of the WG have technique review action items outstanding. Cheers, Jan boland@nist.gov wrote: > I also think the number of comments is sufficient to justify another f2f.. > not sure of the best time or venue for this (dependencies with progression > of WCAG WD?) > > > Will the comments be distilled into specific issues like WCAG WG does? With > issue numbers and database tracking? > > > The point was raised today about a reference to the latest ATAG2.0 > implementation techniques. Will they be published along with the next ATAG2.0 > WD in the next announcement? > > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>: > >> Hi all, >> >> I thought that call went quite well. >> >> At this point, I think the pile of comments is big enough to justify >> another F2F - the goal of which would be a Last Call WD. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT