RE: AUWG Poll #6: 12 November 2007

All agreed with Jan proposals.
Sorry for late due to DSL problems here (one month that I've got a powerful
2Kb DSL instead of 4MB :-D)


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Richards
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:46 PM
To: WAI-AUWG List
Subject: AUWG Poll #6: 12 November 2007


Hi All,

I though that was a very productive F2F...resulting in this Editor's Draft:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071112/WD-ATAG20-20071112.html

There are just a few minor things (marked with "@@") to clear up before 
I start the publication process (I would really appreciate responses by 
Friday, Nov. 16th.):


[1]  A.1.2.2: I propose we reword this (my rationale is that it is 
unrealistic to expect AT's to chase after custom API extensions for each 
authoring tool as the current wording does) - NEW WORDING:

A.1.2.2 Accessible Alternative (user interface "chrome", content 
display): If any non-Web-based authoring user interface functionality is 
not supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s), 
then a separate accessible alternative for that functionality that is 
supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s) is 
provided and a description of the inaccessible functionality appears in 
the conformance claim.


[2] A.4.1: Rationale: Some authors will benefit from support with 
unusual words or abbreviations.


[3] In "What does a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document 
include?", bullet 4, I propose the parenthetical statement in "Any 
assumptions about user agents available to authors or end users (related 
to the "user agent supported" concept in WCAG 2.0)".

My Rationale: Was to explain why we were asking for this info.


[4] Definition of "user interface component" - I propose adding the 
second sentence in the following:

@@A part of the user interface "chrome" or content display (including 
renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a 
distinct function. In ATAG 2.0, the term is used to denote any part of 
the user interface of the authoring tool involved with display or control.@@

My Rationale: To be more clear since we use this term a lot.


Cheers,
Jan