- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:51:26 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- CC: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
Compiled answers from: JR http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0075.html TB http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0078.html GP http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0083.html AR http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0084.html JS http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0085.html 1) New proposal on replacing term: freehand drawing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0063.html _ Accept the proposal JR GP AR JS _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) TB _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group TB Comments: why do we need to distinguish between "continuous" and "discrete"? Those terms are highly subjective..? It's all just "input" via a "device"? The wording of the new proposal seems confusing to me.. Also, WCAG2.0 has definitions for "(Web) content" and "keyboard interface" - are our definitions consistent with theirs? If not, should they be? ====================== (2) Removing term "option" from glossary http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results#xq17 _ Remove "option" _ Keep "option" TB _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group JR GP AR JS JR COMMENT: If we keep it, we should remove the local and global parts since those are no longer referenced. TB Comments: If "option" is used normatively in the spec, it needs to be kept (important term..)? ====================== (3) Adding "Encouraged" the note on checking (Tim's action) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0068.html _ Accept the proposal JR TB GP AR JS _ 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 JR AR JS _ Recommend changes (add comments) GP _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group GP Comment: 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 _ Accept the proposal JR GP AR JS _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group JR COMMENT: The actual requirement to output metadata has implementations (e.g., http://www.w3.org/WAI/RC/earl#implementations) but does anyone know of repair tools that can read-in this metadata? ====================== (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 JR AR JS _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) GP _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group GP COMMENT: 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. JS COMMENT: I didn't like "Detect objects serving special functions and suggest standard labels for them (e.g., "button", "spacer", "horizontal rule", etc.)." because we certainly do not want spacers to have short text. I think it is confusing and should be avoided. ====================== (7) Approving responses to IBM comments on the last public WD: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0070.html _ Accept the proposal JR GP AR _ 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 _ Accept the proposal JR GP AR _ 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 JR AR _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) GP _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group GP Comment: 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html _ AA _ AAA GP _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group JR AR ====================== (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 _ Don't add note (on power users) JR GP _ Add note (on power users) AR _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:51:53 UTC