- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:05:05 -0400
- To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Dear EOWG Participants, Please review the following, which is the current status of our our replies to the WCAG WG's responses on our comments on the WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft. The information is taken mostly from our teleconference discussion last week, which was based on our survey responses by then, and any additional survey responses received by midnight Eastern time on Thursday. Let me know if you spot any corrections needed. Here are links to some key pages, in case you want to look anything up: 1. first batch of WCAG WG replies to us: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0044 2. second batch of WCAG WG replies to us: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2007AprJun/0045 3. your EOWG survey: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/ 4. EOWG survey results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/W2CommentsM07/results 5. WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/ 6. WCAG 2.0 updated Public Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/ 7. Minutes from last week's EOWG call http://www.w3.org/2007/05/25-eo-minutes Thanks, - Judy [DRAFT EOWG REPLIES TO WCAG WG FOLLOWS] [NOTE: The first sentence after each number is what we would send to WCAG WG. If there is a second sentence, in brackets, that is a note just for our own follow-up discussion, and would not be included in the follow-up response to WCAG WG.] Comment #1: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #2: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #3: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #4: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #5: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #6: Accept resolution. [New comment: the Quick Reference formatting needs to be toned down, particularly wrt overuse of italics.] Comment #7: (Discuss SAZ comment.) Comment #8: (Get clarification on Liam's comment.) Comment #9: Accept resolution. [Need to review "accessibility supported technologies.'] Comment #10: Accept resolution. [Need to review "accessibility supported technologie."] Comment #11: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #12: Not accepted, because the revised definition of assistive technology is more difficult to understand than the original. Comment #13: Accept resolution. [New comment: Glossary definitions need better formatting.] Comment #14: Accept resolution. Comment #15: Accept resolution. Comment #16: Accept resolution. Comment #17: Accept resolution. [New comment: Glossary definitions need better formatting.] Comment #18: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #19: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #20: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #21: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #22: Accept resolution. [Discuss whether we want to make a new comment on the understandability of "sufficient techniques"] Comment #23: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #24: Accept resolution. [May have related comments on new draft.] Comment #25: (Check w/ Wayne on his comment.) Comment #26: Not accepted. The short handles in the success criteria are a help, but need them in the guidelines as well. Comment #27: Accept resolution. [Discuss whether at least a brief definition of these terms is needed in the Introduction to the guidelines.] -- Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526 32 Vassar Street Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 05:19:57 UTC