Re: New Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0

Some fix needed here (guideline and success criteria number don't match):

Guideline A.1.3 [For the authoring tool user interface] Follow the 
accessibility conventions of the platform. [Techniques]
Rationale: Following platform accessibility conventions lessens the need for 
assistive technologies to make special-purpose accommodations. Also, people 
who are familiar with the accessibility conventions employed by a specific 
platform will find applications that adhere to those conventions easier to 
use.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.1
  a.. A.4.1.1 Follow and Cite Conventions (user interface "chrome", content 
display): Platform conventions are followed and the convention sources are 
cited for all of the following:
    a.. Input: Keyboard, mouse, etc. including non-interference with 
keyboard accessibility features of the platform (e.g., StickyKeys, SlowKeys, 
browser link navigation)
    b.. Focus
    c.. Selection, and
    d.. Product installation.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.1
  a.. A.4.1.2 Follow and Cite Conventions (user interface "chrome", content 
display): Platform conventions are followed and the convention sources are 
cited for all of the following:
    a.. User interface design,
    b.. Keyboard configuration, and
    c.. Documentation.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.1
  a.. (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.4.1)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jan Richards" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
To: "WAI-AUWG List" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:29 PM
Subject: New Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0


>
> Hi,
>
> The updated Editor's Draft is at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071122/WD-ATAG20-20071122.html
>
> Greg and Roberto could you contact me about the Checklist and Comparison 
> documents?
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
>
>
>
> Jan Richards wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Greg, Tim and Roberto. I'll put out a new Editor's Draft on 
>> Thursday.
>>
>>  From there we need to update 3 documents:
>>
>> 1. the Techniques
>> 2. the Checklist, and
>> 3. the Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0
>>
>>
>> I can do biggest piece...(1)...Roberto would you like to do (2)? and 
>> Gregg you mentionned that you could do (3), is that still possible?
>>
>> If so I can send you the most up-to-date versions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg Pisocky wrote:
>>> Everything's fine with one recommended change from the proposal...
>>>
>>> Change number [2] Rationale to read: "Some authors will benefit from
>>> support for understanding unusual words
>>> or abbreviations"
>>>
>>> Greg Pisocky, Adobe Systems
>>> gpisocky@adobe.com 703.883.2810p | 703.883.2850f | 703.678.3541m
>>>
>>> -----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 10:46 AM
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 
> 269.16.2/1142 - Release Date: 20/11/2007 17.44
>
>

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 21:19:03 UTC