Re: AUWG Poll #1: 10 September 2007

see my responses below

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
09/10/2007 03:34 PM

To
w3c-wai-au@w3.org
cc

Subject
AUWG Poll #1: 10 September 2007







So here's how an email poll might work....


AUWG Poll #1:

-----

Instructions:

- Proposed rewordings, issues etc. are listed.

- Members in good standing (http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/members) have the 
following "response" options:
   A: Accept the proposal
   B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)
   C: Do not accept the proposal (then specify reason)

- Once 3 people have accepted a proposal (assume my vote is to accept 
unless noted) and none have rejected it, I'll start a 3 day timer. If 
the timer expires with no rejections then the proposal is assumed to be 
carried

- to keep things organized, please respond to the poll as a whole rather 
than to individual questions.

-----

Start of proposals:

Proposal 1: Components of Web Accessibility wording
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#intro-components


Response: Accept the proposal

-----

Proposal 2: Moving the "Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document" section 
up above the guidelines as it is in WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#intro-organization


Response: Accept the proposal

-----

Proposal 3: The "modified" text in "Relationship to the Web Content 
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#Relationship-To-WCAG


Response: Accept the proposal (although it does not deal well with the 
situation that someone chooses something other than a WCAG as the 
guidelines for accessibility)

-----

Proposal 4: Modified definition of "authoring action", "authoring 
outcome", "authoring practice"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0038.html

Response: Accept the proposal

-----

Proposal 5: Definition of "authoring session "
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#definitions


Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)

suggest "no further opportunity to make changes." --> "no further 
opportunity to make changes without starting another session."

-----

Proposal 6: Modified definition of "authoring tool", "view" (which would 
then contain "editing view" and "preview"), and "authoring tool user 
interface"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0040.html
PLUS see below for modification to "authoring tool"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0043.html

Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)

WRT the PLUS section. 
ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or *collection of
software components*, that *authors* use to create or modify *Web
content* for USE BY OTHER PEOPLE.

(I'm aware and ok with the fact that this covers email systems that send 
"Web content")

On the (...) comment, to me, an email (or similar, say wiki) system should 
not be required to (but it is allowed to) be responsible for assisting the 
author in prompting, evaluating or fixing email content that was included 
from other sources (including forwarded email or attachments). At most it 
should only be held accountable for the actual content added by the author 
issuing the "send" request. 

Although the AUWG clearly would include an email system as an authoring 
tool (especially one like gmail), I'm not sure all email system vendors 
would agree. For example, is an email system that sends over the internet 
but uses private formats (vs say HTML) to encode the mail so that only the 
same type of system can receive the mail and render it considered to be an 
authoring tool (Lotus Notes can work in this mode)?


-----


End of Poll #1


Cheers,
Jan