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

Re: AUWG survey (due before the call on Mar. 1):

From: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:06:04 -0800
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
CC: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <64BAFF76F7529141BBCFE3457F1D81AD013CAB425E2C@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
(1) New proposal on replacing term: freehand drawing:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0063.html

  _X Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(2) Removing term "option" from glossary

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results#xq17

  _ Remove "option"

  _ Keep "option"

  X Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(3) Adding "Encouraged" the note on checking (Tim's action)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0068.html

  X Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(4) Updated intent text for B.2.1.3 Other Technologies

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0067.html

  _ Accept the proposal

  X Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



Insert "content" ...I agree with the proposal,



However, in cases where the

inserted web content technology can introduce extensive, inaccessible content, providing

functionality support for linking to conforming alternate versions might

be appropriate.





======================

(5) Updated intent text for B.2.2.9 Metadata for Repair

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0069.html

  X Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(6) Various marked edits in Appendix A: Gathering Accessibility

Information from Authors:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20100222/#prompting-types

  _ Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  X The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



Are these to be considered normative techniques or just examples of the sorts of things one can do. Provide validation for structure for instance strikes me as specifying an admittedly useful (but optional) feature to a tool that assuming it generates structure would be generating a valid structure.



======================

(7) Approving responses to IBM comments on the last public WD:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0070.html

  X Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(8) E.g. added to B.1.2.2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility

Information:

Point 1 in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html

  X Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(9) E.g. added to B.1.2.2 Examples

Point 4 in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html

  _ Accept the proposal

  _ Recommend changes (add comments)

  X The proposal needs more discussion (add comments)

  _ Disagree with the proposal

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



Now I am having problems with 8 and 9 - what kind of tool on this good earth

Would destroy an original thus providing the need to archive it in some separate location?

Perhaps this isn't the best of examples and as such has us trying to construct some

Bizarre scenarios.



======================

(10) B.2.2.8 Metadata for Discovery: AA or AAA?

Point 2 in

  _ AA

  X AAA

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================

(11) Idea of noting keyboard optimizations are good for power users

Point 3 in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html

  X Don't add note (on power users)

  _ Add note (on power users)

  _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group



======================









Cheers,

Jan





--

(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.

jan.richards@utoronto.ca<mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca?Subject=Re%3A%20AUWG%20survey%20(due%20before%20the%20call%20on%20Mar.%201)%3A&In-Reply-To=%253C4B85612E.7070003%40utoronto.ca%253E&References=%253C4B85612E.7070003%40utoronto.ca%253E> | 416-946-7060



Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)

Faculty of Information | University of Toronto


Greg Pisocky
Accessibility Specialist
Adobe Systems Incorporated
8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000
McLean, VA 22102 USA
703.883.2810p,   703.883.2850f
703.678.3542c

gpisocky@adobe.com<mailto:gpisocky@adobe.com>
www.adobe.com/accessibility<http://www.adobe.com/accessibility>

Concall Info

 *   69900 (from any Adobe office worldwide)
 *   408-536-9900 (from any non-Adobe location in the 408 area code)
 *   1-877-220-5439 (North America Toll Free)
 *   1-800-642-196 (Australia Toll Free)
 *   44-20-8606-1105 or ext. 81105 (London)
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:06:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 March 2010 20:06:44 GMT