My initial concerns are that the ATAG2.0 conformance model would be complicated by the introduction of two new classes of products, those that would just seek to conform to Part A (but go no farther into Part B), and those that would just seek to conform to Part B (but go no farther into Part A), in addition to those products that would seek to conform to both Parts A and B. Also, would a disincentive be provided for a product to seek to conform to both Parts A and B by introduction of the proposed scheme? My apologies if I'm misunderstanding. I'm certainly open to discussion on the topic... Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>: > > Re: the F2F, does anyone want to host? Another possibility is CSUN, > which is in mid-March and often includes WAI meetings (I could check if > we have missed any deadlines for this). > > Re: the partial credit scheme idea: > > The "Partial Conformance" idea that Jutta had yesterday sounded > interesting... > > Jutta didn't have chance to elaborate, but my first thought is that it > might involve two new categories of conformance: > > "Partial Conformance to ATAG 2.0: Authoring Tool User Interface" > (could be claimed if Part A is met to at least Level A) > > "Partial Conformance to ATAG 2.0: Content Production" > (could be claimed if Part B is met to at least Level A) > > Cheers, > Jan > > > > Barry Feigenbaum wrote: > > > > Agreed on F2F. I assume March is earliest we can do it. right? I am not > > available the week of March 5. > > Will WCAG be "revised" LC by then? Shouldn't we should delay until WCAG > > reaches this state before we release a LC. > > > > Andi Snow-Weaver was (independently) stating the need for a "partial > > credit" scheme as I have tried several times in the past to get. I know > > having some hard minimums of support is good for accessibility, but not > > always practical from a tool vendor point of view. > > > > For example, creating an accessible tool is quite independent from > > creating a tool that makes accessible content. Achieving either is > > difficult, but getting > > no level of compliance with only one of these achieved seems not > > satisfactory. > > > > PS I have asked for a general review by IBMers (beyond Becky Gibson). > > That will not time out by the stated deadline but should be ready by > > any F2F. > > > > Barry A. Feigenbaum, Ph. D. > > Tool Architect > > Human Ability and Accessibility Center - IBM Research > > www.ibm.com/able, w3.ibm.com/able > > voice 512-838-4763/tl678-4763 > > fax 512-838-9367/0330 > > cell 512-799-9182 > > feigenba@us.ibm.com > > Mailstop 904/5F-021 > > 11400 Burnet Rd., Austin TX 78758 > > > > Accessibility ARB Representative on SWG ARB > > W3C AUWG Representative > > Austin IBM Club BoD > > Interface Technologies IDT Member > > QSE Development TopGun > > > > Sun Certified Java Programmer, Developer & Architect > > IBM Certified XML Developer; OOAD w/UML > > > > This message sent with 100% recycled electrons > > > > > > *Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>* > > Sent by: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org > > > > 01/11/2007 04:21 PM > > > > > > To > > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > > cc > > > > Subject > > Re: Joint call with WCAG-WG - 11 January 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > >Received on Saturday, 13 January 2007 11:36:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:54 UTC