W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: my action item from AUWG call of Feb 22 2010

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:08:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8435D8.1090109@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Thanks for the prompt action item. I like the change. We will put the 
full text on the survey:

Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) 
for many types of web content accessibility problems. However, manual 
checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In 
manual checking, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions 
for detecting problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For 
more information on checking, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix B: 
Levels of Checking Automation.

Cheers,
Jan



On 23/02/2010 9:52 AM, Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote:
> For my action item, maybe for #8 on the AUWG Survey:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/
>
> we could add “(and encouraged)” to make it read:
>
> “Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible -(and
> encouraged)- for many types of web content accessibility problems.
> However,..”
>
> I think it’s important to encourage authoring tool developers to include
> automated and semi-automated checking as much as possible (to promote
> the quality and richness of authoring tools – raise the bar a little
> bit?)..
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Tim Boland NIST
>

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060

Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 20:09:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 20:09:37 GMT