[Fwd: [Fwd: re: My ATAG Glossary action items (draft)]] - finished my responses

Hi Tim,

I think I have responded to most of your points. Could you scan over 
them and let me know where you disagree with my responses?

Cheers,
Jan



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: re: My ATAG Glossary action items (draft)]
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:48:04 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:47:22 -0500
From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>


This is a continuation of my response to Tim's message
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0000.html)
which was very comprehensive:

NOTE: This is very long and I am not yet done

> Task #1: Terms in Normative Parts possibly either needing definition (if 
> not already defined?) or additional explanation/examples, or further 
> thought in relation to objective testability/conformance (consult
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-terms-inline-gp
> for more information on defining terms in specifications - In what follows, 
> I list the section first, and then the terms possibly needing
> additional clarification):
> 
> Global NOte:  the "[UAAG 1.0]" designations should be linked to 
> appropriate version/spec..

JR: Agreed.

> In "Definition of authoring tool" section:
> 
> application

JR: Would "software application" help this term become common usage?

> Web content (link to definition?)

JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed.

> embedded/stand-alone?

JR: Maybe we don't need the text that says: "(embedded and stand-alone)"

> (Web content) technologies

JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed.

> In Notes on the Definition following, for #1, add "Web" in front of 
> "content"?, and

JR: OK

>  "live content authoring tool" may need definition
> For #2, add "authoring" in front of "tool"?

JR: Suggest change to: "Applications that are used to create content in
real time..." so we don't need a def'n

> Is the "Components of Web Accessibility" section normative or 
> informative (not clear)?

JR: Informative...see "This section is informative, except where noted."
at top of Introduction. Maybe definition of authoring tool needs to come
out of Intro since this is the only normative part - now that
conformance stuff has gone.

> If normative, then after "Two Parts", "accessible authoring tools" 
> should be underlined

JR: This is in "Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document" which is also
Informative.

> (not just authoring tools)?  Maybe a definiton (or expansion) of "disabilities"?  

JR: I think we are ok with the text we have a the top of the
introduction : "...more accessible to people with disabilities,
including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning
disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech
difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to
ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types,
degrees and combinations of disabilities."

> In "Part A", consider definitions for "authoring tool user interface"

JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed.

>, and "accessible"?  

JR: WCAG doesn't define I suggest we don't either.

> Provide a link for "WCAG2.0"?

JR: OK

> Maybe "augmented display and control" definition?

JR: I think the def'n of "assistive technologies" covers this

> Also "perceive", "operate", 

JR: WCAG2 doesn't define (and the wording here is informative)

> "user interface components"?

JR: I suggest "its user interface components"=> the authoring tool's
user interface which has a def'n.

> In "Part B" section, add "authoring" in front of "tool"?

JR: OK

> For #2, consider definitions for "actions" 

JR: Authoring actions is a defined term.

> and "features"?  

JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text)

> FOr Note following #2, consider definition for "user interface
> accessibility"?  

JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text)

> Also definitions for "accessible authoring practices"

JR: OK, defined term already

> and "functions related to accessibility"?

JR: Maybe change to "features"

> "Success Criteria" section before "Levels of Conformance":
> insert "middle" after "AA"?

JR: OK

> RElationship to the WCAG:
> Do we want to still list "WCAG1.0" after "e.g.", since WCAG2.0 is now a 
> rec?

JR: Let's change to 2.0

> Do we want to provide a link to WCAG2.0 when used first?

JR: OK

> Web content technologies?
> accessible authoring practices?
> WCAG-conforming?

JR: Suggest: "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by
WCAG-conforming examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool"
be REWORDED to say "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by
examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool that conform to WCAG"

> Web content?

JR: OK, already defined.

> ATAG2.0 Guidelines -> Part A -> Applicability NOtes:
> "chrome"?

JR: I think the e.g. clarifies this

> insert "Web" before "content" (two places in paragraph)?

JR: OK

> user interface (or do we want to add "authoring tool" before "user 
> interface"?

JR: OK. Let's insert "authoring tool"

> accessibility

JR: Prefer not to, see above

> authoring tool user interface

JR: OK, defined already

> Guideline A.1.2 - > A.1.2.1
> 
> standards
> platform conventions

JR: Let's define: "standards and/or platform conventions that benefit
accessibility"

> Guideline 2.1 (should be A.2.1?):

JR: Yes there is a numbering error.

> assistive technologies

JR: OK, defined already

> 2.1.2:
> 
> user interface components

JR: OK, defined already

> name, 

JR: OK, defined already

> role, 

JR: OK, defined already

> state, value, description?

JR: OK. To get us started..from WAI ARIA (http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/):

State
A state is a dynamic property expressing characteristics of an object
that may change in response to user action or automated processes.
States do not affect the essential nature of the object, but represent
data associated with the object or user interaction possibilities.

Value
A literal that concretizes the information expressed by a state or
property, or text content.

Property
Attributes that are essential to the nature of a given object. As such,
they are less likely to change than states; a change of a property may
significantly impact the meaning or presentation of an object.
Properties mainly provide limitations on objects from the most general
case implied by roles without properties applied.

Description
???

> 2.1.3:
> spell out "DOM"

JR: OK

> user agent

JR: OK, defined already

> 2.1.4:
> available programmatically

JR: Maybe if we added (e.g., via an API)?

> (value of a?) piece of content

JR: Rewording suggestion: "piece of content" => "content"

> degree of write access?

JR: Rewording suggestion: "degree of write access" => "ability"

> 2.1.5:
> foreground color
> background color

JR: I think this is clear to the audience of the doc.

> Applicability Note:
> user agent interface

JR: Should say "authoring tool user interface" - term is defined

> Principle A-2:
> Editing views?

JR: Term defined within "view"

> Perceivable?

JR: WCAG doesn't define.

> A.2.1.1:
> Alternative equivalents (or equivalent alternatives - need to decide 
> which one and stick to it for consistency)

JR: Equivalent alternatives

> Guideline A.2.2:
> Programmatic access

JR: Rewording suggestion: "Provide programatic access to all information
in the editing view"=>"Provide programatic access to information in the
editing view" (removed "all")

JR: "Programmatic access" already used above

> A.2.2.1:
> functional purpose

JR: Suggest rewording: "...the functional purpose for the
modification..." => "...a description of the purpose of the modification..."

> A.2.2.2:
> WYSIWYG (need to spell out?)

JR: Or make it a defined term:

WYSIWYG
This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG user
interface displays content being edited in a way that is very similar to
how it will appear to end users.

> A.2.3.1:
> 
> display characteristics/preferences

JR: Maybe we instead use "Display settings" which is a defined term.
Preferences is common usage.

> Principle A-3:
> perceivable?

JR: Prefer not to, see above.

> Guideline A-3-1:
> 
> authoring features?

JR: Suggest: "Enhance keyboard access to authoring features" => "Enhance
keyboard access"

> keyboard access?
> 
> A.3.1.1:
> 
> key-plus-modifier-key

JR: I think this is OK.

> operating environment
> 
> A.3.1.2:
> 
> keyboard trap

JR: OK...here's a start:

keyboard trap
A user interface phenomenon in which the keyboard may be used to move
focus to, but not from, a control or group of controls.

JR: PLUS "Importing Content Keyboard Trap" => "Avoiding Content Keyboard
Trap"

> keyboard focus

JR: I think this is a common term for the audience.

> standard sequential keyboard command
> direct keyboard command

JR: I came up with these terms for UAAG
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008AprJun/0004.html)

> focusable element

JR: Suggest: "will always move keyboard focus to a subsequent focusable
element" => "will always move keyboard focus to the next element able to
receive focus"

> Applicability NOtes:
> keyboard navigation functions

JR: Suggest: "functions"=>"features" more commonly used perhaps.

> Guideline A.3.2:
> time-dependent-interaction

JR: Suggest wording closer to WCAG2: "Enable time-independent
interaction" => "Minimize time limits on authors."

> A.3.2.1:
> server

JR: I think this is a common term for the audience.

> A.3.2.2:
> simple action

JR: In A.3.2.2 I think the e.g. is sufficient. I suggest we remove the
use of "simple action" in A.3.4.

> A.3.2.3:
> moving target
> selectable component

JR: Remove both terms with suggested rewording: "If the user interface
includes any moving targets for authors' actions (e.g.,a selectable
component of an animation), then authors can stop that movement." => "If
a user interface component that accepts mouse input is capable of
movement (e.g., animated vector graphic), provide authors with the
option to stop the movement."

> GUideline A.3.3
> flashing

JR: Defined term.

> seizures

JR: I think this is a common term.

> A.3.3.1:
> static view
> time-based content
> fixed state

JR: Suggested rewording (time: "If an editing view renders content
(e.g., WYSIWYG) then the author has the global option of a static view
in which time-based content appears in a fixed state." => "If an editing
view renders time-based content (e.g., animations), provide authors with
the global option of rendering only the initial state of time-based
content."

> Guideline A.3.4:
> navigation
> editing
> content structure

JR: Rewording of rationale suggestion: "People who have difficulty
typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the
structure present in the content to simplify navigation and editing" =>
"People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when
authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify the
tasks of navigating and editing the content"

> A.3.4.1:
> element, contents, sub-elements (is distinction always clear?)

JR: ASIDE: This is making me think we need an "Understanding ATAG 2.0"
document since I don't think the Glossary can necessarily clarify
absolutely everything.

> A.3.4.2:
> structured element set

JR: Defined term.

> editing focus

JR: I think this would be clear to the audience.

> identical element

JR: REWORDING suggestion: "next identical element" => "next instance of
the same element".

> A.3.4.3:
> heading/level?

JR: REWORDING suggestion: "to the heading" before "to the next heading
element".

> A.3.4.4:
> Doesn't above, below, preceding, etc. depend on navigation order?

JR: We could clarify "in the hierarchy".

> A.3.5.1:
> text search

JR: REWORDING suggestion: "A function is provided that allows text
search of the content..." =>  "Provide the ability to search for text in
the content.."

> insert "Web" before "content"?

JR: OK

> textual information/text content

JR: REWORDING suggestion: "can search any textual information..." =>
"can search within any content that is text..."

> editable?

JR: REWORDING suggestion: "that is editable using the authoring tool" =>
"that the authoring tool can modify".

> backwards, forwards, case sensistive/insensitive may be unclear?

JR: I think they are ok.

> What does it mean to "perform search results"?

JR: REWORDING: "view search results"

> instruction level?

JR: Term should be "source content" defined in glossary.

> markup tags (difference from elements?)

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "search for markup tags" => "search for
elements by name".

> Guideline A.3.6:
> preference settings

JR: Agee def'n might help.

> A.3.6.1:
> keyboard operability settings

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "keyboard operability settings" => "keyboard
preference settings"

> A.3.6.2:
> multiple sets of preferences?

JR: I think this is clear.

> accessibility option-setting "wizard"

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "...an accessibility option-setting "wizard"
to configure options related to Part A" => "..."wizard"-type feature
that helps them to configure any accessibility-related preference
settings related to Part A"

> A.3.7.1:
> help system

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "If a preview is provided, then it is possible
to return from the preview using a simple action which is documented in
the help system." => If a preview is provided, provide a documented
keyboard accessible mechanism for returning to an editing view from the
preview.

> Guideline A.4.1:
> users (different from authors?)

JR: Should be "authors"

> A.4.1.1:
> irreversible

JR: Reversible is defined. I guess we could mention "irreversible" 
within that term's definition.

reversible actions
Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so 
that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. 
*Irreversible actions* are actions that cannot be reversed and may 
include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a 
collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

> A.4.1.2:
> setting modification

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "setting modification is irreversible" =>
"actions are irreversible"

> A.4.1.3: 
> (Web) content "undo"

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "content 'undo'" => "undo action(s)"

> A.4.1.4:
> reversible authoring function

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Authors can reverse at least 5 consecutive 
reversible authoring actions." => "Allow authors undo at least 5 
consecutive reversible actions."

> Applicability Notes:
> "undo" function (or undo function - need to make consistent)

JR: I suggest: "undo" function

> undo history


JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "to reset the undo history." => "to make all 
previous actions irreversible."

> 
> Guideline A.4.2:
> user interface

JR: Defined...usually our style (following WCAG2) is not to put 
definition links into the guidelines.

> accessibility feature

JR: Guidelines are not normative. I think the SC's do a good job 
explaining what is required.

> A.4.2.1:
> documented?

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Document all features that are specifically 
required to meet Part A of these guidelines (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, 
text search, etc.)."

JR: LINK to "documentation".

> A.4.2.2:
> accessibility feature  and 

JR: Test of SC clarifies this.

> tutorial?

JR: Defined term already.

> Part B:
> Applicability NOtes:
> #1-authoring session?

JR: Defined term already.

> #2-accessibility problems

JR: Defined term already.

> third-party feed
JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "an RSS feed from a third-party"

> automatically-generated

JR: Defined term already. "Content Generation"

> CMS (spell out?)

JR: OK

> #3-accessible authoring practices

JR: Defined term already.

> technologies

JR: Defined term already.

> markup authoring tool

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "HTML authoring tool"

> URIs (spell out?)

JR: Common term for audience

> alternative text

JR: "text alternative" is defined.

> #4 - authoring systems

JR: I think the text explains the handle ok.

> software tools

JR" REWORD SUGGESTION: "As per the definition of authoring tool, several 
applications can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part 
B. (e.g. an authoring tool could make use of a third-party plug-in 
performing accessibility *checking* and *repair*)."

> 3rd party (vs. third-party previous - consistency?) software accessibility

JR: Suggest "third-party" everywhere

> checking and repair program

JR: See REWORD

> Guideline B.1.1:
> Web content technology add "Web" before "content"

JR: OK

> B.1.1.1:
> automatically selected

JR: I think this ok.

> "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?)

JR: A technology doesn't conform to WCAG, content made from the 
technology does.

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?

JR: Let's provide link to "http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/"
JR: Also put note with link to our informative intro text explaining the 
ATAG-WCAG relationship

> B.1.1.2 (and 1.1.4 and 1.1.6):
> Web content technology options

JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Web content technology options"=>"options for 
which Web content technology to use"

> prominence

JR: Defined term.

> accessible technology
> task

JR: We could safely drop this part I think " and the tool guides the 
author towards the most accessible technology for the task."

> B.1.1.5:
> "technology" instead of "technologies"

JR: OK

> "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?)

JR: See above.

> B.1.2.1:
> target (or target technology?)

JR: REWORD: "Technology of the output"

> transformation

JR: Defined term.

> conversion

JR: Defined term.

> recognized accessibility information

JR: "Recognized" is a Defined term.
JR: "accessibility information" is a Defined term.

> B.1.2.2:
> add "Web" before "content"?

JR: OK

> preserved

JR: I think this is ok

> resulting conten

JR: Outputted content

> B.1.2.3:
> automatic deletion

JR: REWORD: "authors have the option to turn off the automatic deletion" 
=> "provide authors with the option of preventing automatic deletion by 
the authoring tool"

> GUideline B.1.3:
> automatically-generated content

JR: Defined term.

> (in see also):
> template

JR: Defined term.

> pre-authored content

JR: Agreed.
Pre-authored content:
Web content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.)


















> B.1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3:
> "Web" content or "content"?

JR: The Glossary term is actually: "content (Web) - or shortened to content"
Is this ok?

> (in applicability notes)"
> automated behavior

JR: Replace with defined "automatic content generation"

> actions

JR: I think this is ok

> generation

JR: Defined term "content generation"

> Principle B.2:
> (global change - add "Web" before "content"?)

JR: See above

> Notes:
> authoring tool processes
> what is example of non-human author?  why do we add "human" here but 
> nowhere else?
> authoring "choices"

JR: I think we can remove this applicability note. B.1 and B.3 don't 
have them.

> Guideline B.2.1:
> accessible "Web" content

JR: Defined term

> (in see also):
> repair features

JR: "Repair" is defined term.

> author guidance

JR: I think this is ok

> (typo - "Guidelin" should be "Guideline")
> B.2.1.1 (2.1.3 and 2.1.5 - misnumbered - should be B.2.1.2 and B.2.1.3):

JR: OK

> prompt(ed)

JR: "Prompt" is defined term.

> information (difference from "Web" content)

JR: Add "(e.g., file location)"

> Guideline B.2.2:
> accessibility problems

JR: Defined term

> B.2.2.1:
> individual check

JR: REWORD "check"=>"test"  - already used in defn of checking

JR: REWORD: "For each WCAG Level A Success Criterion that the authoring 
tool has the functionality to meet, provide at least one test of the 
criterion (e.g., an authoring tool must check the contrast of images 
only if it may be used to edit images)."

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?

JR: See above.

> (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?)

JR: Agreed. See above.

> B.2.2.2:
> checking

JR: Defined term

> workflow

JR: Defined term

> (available to whom?  the author? user of the authoring tool?)

JR: add "to authors"

> B.2.2.3:
> check

JR: See above

> author judgement

JR: I think this is ok

> potential accessibility problem

JR: I think this is ok from the context

> relevant "Web" content
> (this text is confusing to me - "identified" used twice in different 
> contexts?)

JR: SUGGESTED REWORD (combining B.2.2.3 and B.2.2.4): Assist Author 
Decision-Making: "If a test requires authors to decide whether an 
accessibility problem actually exists (i.e., in manual and 
semi-automated checking):
- provide authors with information about the location of the potential 
problem (e.g., line number, highlighted rendering, text instructions, etc.).
- provide authors with instructions to help them decide if a problem 
actually exists.

> B.2.2.4:
> decide (What?)

JR: See above

> B.2.2.5:
> individual check
> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?)

JR: See above

> B.2.2.6:
> 
> accessibility problems

JR: See above

> authoring session

JR: See above

> B.2.2.7:
> 
> (repair) assistance
> checking

JR: See above

> option?

JR: Defined term "options"

> B.2.2.8:
> accessibility status

JR: REWORD: "accessibility status" => "the existence of Web content 
accessibility problems"

> metadata

JR: I think this is ok.

> resource discovery

JR: Suggest removing: " to facilitate resource discovery by end users"

> end users (same as authors?)

JR: No - "defined term"

> option?

JR: See above

> "Web" content?

JR: See above

> B.2.2.9:
> individual check

JR: See above

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?)

JR: See above

> Applicability Notes:
> authoring experience

JR: REWORD: "user experience of authors"

> authoring process

JR: REWORD: "This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool user 
interface limits author options such that it is not possible for them to 
introduce accessibility problems (e.g., some content management systems)."

> accessibility problems

JR: See above.

> Guideline B.2.3:
> accessibility problems

JR: See above.

> B.2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3:
> identifiable
> repair assistance

JR: Link to "Repair"

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?

JR: See above.

> Applicability Notes:
> authoring experience
> authoring process
> accessibility problems

JR: See above.

> Guideline B.2.4.:
> (doesn't "manage" include both "edit" and "reuse" as subcategories?)

JR: REWORD: Assist authors with managing equivalent alternatives for 
non-text objects

> equivalent alternative

JR: Defined term.

> non-text object

JR: Defined term.

> B.2.4.2:
> for a type of??  Is this needed?

JR: REWORD: If the authoring tool is capable of adding a type of 
equivalent alternatives (e.g., text alternatives, captions), then 
authors can edit the equivalent alternatives.

> B.2.4.3:
> 
> equivalent alternative

JR: Defined term.

> object database
> null equivalent alternative
> pure decoration
> (CART - spell out acronym?)
> automatic analysis?
>
> B.2.4.4:
> 
> author-assigned
> plain text
> (stores) directly vs.
> (stores) as (URIs - spell out acronym)
> 
> (Note: what is an "unreliable source"?)
> 

JR: B.2.4 section is in a bit of flux.

> Guideline B.2.5:
> accessible template

JR: REWORD: "If the authoring tool provides templates options for a 
task, then at least one option template options meets WCAG Level A when 
used."

> pre-authored (Web?) content

JR: See above.

> B.2.5.1:
> automatically (selects)

JR: I think this ok.

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> used?

JR: See above

> B.2.5.2:
> accessible template options
> template uses

JR: See above

> B.2.5.3:
> 
> accessibility status

JR: REWORD: (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the WCAG 
level at which the templates meet WCAG when used.

> accessible template options

JR: See above.

> selection mechanism

JR: I think this is ok.

> B.2.5.1:
> automatically (selects)

JR: See above

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> used?

JR: See above

> B.2.5.5:
> new (template)

REWORD: "their own"

> B.2.5.6:
> repository of templates

JR: I think this is ok.

> recorded (accessibility status)

JR: REWORD: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored 
content, then each of the content objects include the WCAG level at 
which they conform."

> B.2.5.7:
> selection mechanism
> pre-authored content
> 
> B.2.5.8:
> 
> repository of pre-authored content
> (Web?) content objects
> recorded (accessibility status)
> 
> B.2.5.9:
> automatically (selects)

JR: I think this is ok.

> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> used?

JR: See above.

> (Note is confusing to me - acessibility of template vs. accessibility of
> (Web) content produced?  - what is "final" technology?)

JR: I think the group needs to revisit this whole Guideline to be sure 
what is being said.

> Principle B.3:
> 
> accessibility solution

JR: Non-normative usage

> promoted

JR: Non-normative usage

> integrated

JR: Non-normative usage

> Guideline B.3.1:
> 
> accessible authoring actions

JR: Already changed to "authoring task" I think that's more clear

> prominence

JR: defined term

> B.3.1.1 terms are underlined whereas B.3.1.2 similar terms are not?

JR: Let's underline everywhere using the less obtrusive WCAG defined 
term style

> Guideline B.3.2:
> seqential authoring processes

JR: Non-normative usage

> accessible authoring practices

JR: Defined term

> B.3.2.1:
> "Functionality" instead of "function"?

JR: Or "features" perhaps.

> relevant to (how measured?)

JR: "required for Level A WCAG conformance"

> "complete" the "function" - awkward?

JR: REWORD: "complete us of the feature"

> B.3.2.2:
> sequence

JR: I think this is ok.

> relevant to (how measured?)

JR: "required for Level A WCAG conformance"

> "complete" the "sequence"

JR: I think this is ok.

> Guideline B.3.3:
> features

JR: I think this is ok.

> accessible (Web) content

JR: Defined term

> available to whom?  author?

JR: Add "to authors"

> B.3.3.1:
> active

JR: REWORD: "Turned 'on'"

> B.3.3.2:
> deactivate/reactivate a feature?

JR: REWORD: "Turn 'off'/turn 'on'"

> B.3.3.1 terms are underlined whereas similar terms in B.3.3.2 are not..

JR: See above.

> B.3.3.3:
> (Web) content accessibility problem

JR: Defined term.

> B.3.3.4:
> comparable features

JR: I think this is ok.

> Guideline B.3.4:
> features

JR: I think this is ok.

> documented

JR: Link to "documentation"

> B.3.4.1:
> instructions

JR: I think this is ok.

> B.3.4.2:
> accessible authoring process

REWORD: "Provide a tutorial, specific to the authoring tool, that 
demonstrates how content conforming to WCAG can be produced.

> Guideline B.3.5:
> authoring practices

JR: Defined term.

> documentation

JR: Defined term.

> accessible

JR: Defined term. "accessible authoring practices"

> B.3.5.1:
> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?

JR: See above.

> (WYSIWYG - spell out acronym)

JR: Addressed in y glossary proposal.

> B.3.5.2:
> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?

JR: See above.

> Conformance:
> version
> published
> document
> for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec?
> URI - spell out acronym

JR: Common term for target audience I think.

> (Note - for the last bullet, do we still want people to point to ATAG1.0?)

JR: ???

> what does "available" mean in this context?

JR: Remove: "that is available"

> component

JR: Defined term

> Web-based user interface functionality

JR: Defined term

> non-user agent platform

JR: I think I recall this being changed.


Cheers,
Jan


-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Friday, 9 January 2009 22:00:04 UTC