W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2011

AUWG agenda setting for the extended Oct 31 call

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:36:27 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03944F28@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

I have made an attempt to filter out the major issues that would be great to resolve during this block of time. Of course it will work best if we have one or more proposals for addressing each issue sent to the list before the call:

Most of the issues are from this URI:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/att-0031/ATAG2-21July2011PublicWD-CommentResponses-rev20111017.html

MS2:
The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if ATAG is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be both. This leads to a great deal of structural problems....
Proposal: No

MS3:
Most touch screen devices do not use the keyboard for navigation. Keyboard is only used for text input. The current definition of keyboard interface does not work ...
Proposal: Yes (in the table at the above URI)

MS1 (related to MS1 on previous public draft):
The concept of "automatically generate" content does not appear well defined. In the example where the developer changes the template of a content management system illustrates the issue. How is a template changed or configured by a developer considered "automatic"?
Proposal: No

MS7:
What are "restructuring transformations" and "recoding transformations"? We think the concept of "accessibility information" needs reexamination....
Proposal: No

TL17:
I'm uncertain how (b) [in B.2.2.3 Technology Decision Support] will be remotely useful to the user....
Proposal: Yes (in the table at the above URI)


Then there is Sueann's concern about the Conformance section

IBM1:
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?...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0022.html


And finally just to keep this one on our radar - though resolution will involve coordination with the WCAG-WG folks:

WCAG-WG's issue with the term: "Accessible Content"
We have run into issues in the past with calling content accessible, since no content is completely accessible to all people. We strongly encourage you to find a different term. We can say that it is WCAG 2.0 conforming. or perhaps even "WCAG2.0 accessible". But we certainly do not say or imply that WCAG makes pages accessible as an absolute and in fact go to great pains to say that meeting ALL WCAG, even at AAA and even if you do all the advisory techniques, will not make pages accessible to all. We feel that the use of the term "accessible content" raises unrealistic expectations.
URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011JulSep/0048.html


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>
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 18:37:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 18:37:04 GMT