RE: Review of ATAG responses to IBM comments

Hi Sueann,

Thanks.

I agree that our conformance claim language should not depart from WCAG2.0 unless necessary, so I will take another look. To help me in doing this, can you specify:


(1)    If there is anything in particular that we DO say that you don't think should be there.

(2)    If there is anything we DON'T say that you think we are missing.

Cheers,
Jan

(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocad.ca<mailto:jrichards@ocad.ca>

Twitter @OCAD<http://twitter.com/ocad>
Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity<http://www.facebook.com/ocaduniversity>

OCAD UNIVERSITY
100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada  M5T 1W1
www.ocadu.ca<http://www.ocad.ca>

From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sueann Nichols
Sent: October 14, 2011 10:41 AM
To: Richards, Jan; Jeanne Spellman
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Review of ATAG responses to IBM comments


Hello,

Overall the responses seem reasonable. I do have a concern with one of the blocking issues raised on the conformance claim.  Why is ATAG not using the same or  very similar conformance claim from WCAG 2.0?   Given that's language people are now familiar with, wouldn't it make sense to be consistent with that language?

Reference:
The link to the comments is here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/atag20-8Jul10LC-comments-updated14july2011.html


Sueann Nichols

Phone: (720) 396-6739 (t/l) 938-6739
ssnichol@us.ibm.com
IBM Human Ability & Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able