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

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

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:55:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8C29C8.5080400@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@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
JT http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0087.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 JT
   _ 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 JT

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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
   _ 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 JT
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:56:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 March 2010 20:56:07 GMT