W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2007

Comments on ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:47:14 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20070113034719.ZHAV19510.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>

Hello,

Congratulations!

Below are my comments on ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft by document
section.



Abstract


Comment 1:
Excellent. Very clear and concise.





1 Introduction


Paragraph 1, sentence 1.

Typo 1:
WCAG instead of ATAG.



Paragraph 1, sentence 3.

Comment 2:
"These guidelines have been written to address the requirements of many
different audiences, including, but not limited to: policy makers, technical
administrators, and those who develop or manage content."
Why are authoring tool developers not included?

Suggestion:
"These guidelines have been written to address the requirements of many
different audiences, including, but not limited to: policy makers, technical
administrators, authoring tool developers, and those who develop or manage
content."



1.2 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

Comment 3:
Excellent. Very clear and concise.





2. Conformance


Checkpoint Priorities

"Regular Priority" Checkpoints

Comment 4:
First thought.......what are Part A and Part B? This information is not
explained until much further in the document. Perhaps should be
referred/linked to from Abstract or Intro.

Suggestions:
Change "Significance in Part A:" to....
"Significance in Part A - Authoring Tool User Interface:"
And link down to PART A in the document.

Change "Significance in Part B:" to....
"Significance in Part B - Content:" 
And link down to PART B in the document.



"Relative Priority" Checkpoints 

Comment 5:
Like very much the language "minimal, intermediate, stringent" for Priority
Level distinction.





3. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines


PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible

A.1.3
Success Criteria 1
"If the visual display (e.g., fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning) is
controlled by the authoring tool rather than by the platform, then the
authoring tool must provide at least the same configurable properties with
at least the same configuration ranges as the platform."

Comment 6:
In areas in the document where 'visual display' is used, contrast should be
included with e.g..


Success Criteria 2
"If the audio display (e.g., volume, speech voices) is controlled by the
authoring tool rather than by the platform, then the authoring tool must
provide at least the same configurable properties with at least the same
configuration ranges as the platform."

Comment 7:
In areas in the document where 'audio display' is used, should voice control
speed, emphasis, inflection and/or intonation be included in e.g.?




GUIDELINE A.4: Authoring Tool User Interface must be Access System Friendly


Paragraph 1, sentence 1.

Comment 8:
In areas in the document where 'Assistive technologies' is used, other AT
should be included with e.g., such as voice recognition. The current
examples appear too vision-disability centric.




Thank you..............:-)


* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst


CRI Headquarters

Communications Resource, Inc. (CRI)
8280 Greensboro Drive, Suite 400,
McLean, Virginia 22102 - USA

Phone: 703-245-7872 
CRI Email: kharitos-shea@cri-solutions.com
Location: Room 437



On-Site Support

U.S. Department of Treasury - Financial Management Service 
Information Resources - Project Management Oversight
Section 508 Coordinator Support 

Phone: 202-874-3203 
FMS Email: Katie.Haritos-Shea@fms.treas.gov
Location: 10E24
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2007 03:47:34 GMT

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