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

RE: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:51:24 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20070920175540.02150ea8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

I agree with Greg's comments..

At 01:37 PM 9/20/2007 -0700, you wrote:

>Appreciate all your work with this Jan. Here are my votes.
>
>Proposal 1:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
>changes)
>
>Grammar: Change second sentence of first paragraph from: "They are
>similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is
>written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific a
>Authoring Tool is tested against it." to "They are similar to the
>"checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a
>statement that will be either true or false when a specific Authoring
>Tool is tested against it."
>
>Proposal 2: A: Accept the Proposal
>
>Proposal 3: C: Do not accept the proposal. I would like to see a
>requirement for claimants to cite the authority for the conventions
>being followed. "My application adheres to Windows UI conventions
>version xxx, or Mac OS X, or X Windows, etc. Also a change in phrasing:
> >From "Also, people are often familiar with accessibility conventions
>employed by other applications built for a platform will find the
>application easier to use" to "Also, people who are familiar with the
>accessibility conventions employed by a specific platform while find
>applications that adhere to those conventions easier to use."
>
>Proposal 4:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
>changes). Add words to the effect: "Except for those Benchmark documents
>published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG. Or published
>by those entities. Or perhaps this: "Neither W3C, WAI, nor WAI-AUWG take
>any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance
>claim or Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document that has not been
>published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG." I suspect
>the W3C will be publishing conformance claims and benchmarks for W3C
>technologies and they should be held responsible for those just as
>entities responsible for non-W3C technologies will be liable for any
>claims made in the documents they publish.
>
>Proposal 5: A: Accept the proposal
>
>Proposal 6: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Change "1. manual
>checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the
>case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by
>the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual test
>procedure;" to "1. manual checking: where the tests are carried out by
>authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by
>instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where
>authors must intervene to carry out the actual test procedure;
>
>Proposal 7: A: Accept the proposal
>
>Proposal 8: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Add "dynamically
>generated content" to the list of examples. For applications where
>scripting or code rather than a template creates the output that must be
>accessible.
>
>Greg Pisocky | Adobe Systems | 703-883-2810 p | 703-678-3541 m
>gpisocky@adobe.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:01 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > Cc: 'WAI-AUWG List'
> > Subject: Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007
> >
> >
> > Just a reminder that I'm awaiting two more responses before
> > processing AUWG Poll #2.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0055.html
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jan
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 12:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:07 GMT