W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2010

Updated editors drafts of Understanding and Techniques

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4C238C10.6010906@w3.org>
To: List WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I've posted updated drafts of Understanding and Techniques for us to
look at in today's call:

    * http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
    * http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/

There are 4 new flash techniques, the ARIA techniques have been updated,
G122 became H92, and a bunch of editorial fixes from public comments are
in place. However, there are editorial issues particularly with the new
content that I haven't fixed yet.

I didn't feel there was anything worth formally surveying but could use
input from the group on various things.

One of the biggest concerns is the working examples for Flash
techniques. In the wiki, I've found a variety of things - sometimes just
a .swf file, sometimes a .fla file, and sometimes both plus a .html
file. In the wiki the "working version" link usually pointed to a .swf,
yet I think it needs to be embedded in a .html to load properly across
browsers. There isn't always one prepared, and one at least that I
looked at had basic validity problems and didn't work in my browser to
load the .swf. This is all to say, I need direction on how to handle
working examples.

The Flash technology notes that we talked about has been put into the
top of the Flash techniques document
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/flash>. It's just below the table
of contents, before the first technique. It has at least one editorial
issue, that the headings aren't at their proper levels yet. Beyond that,
I'd like to ask, does this content work where it is? It is referenced
from the user agent support section of each Flash technique. Note that
the references all go to the standalone Flash techniques page, even
though this content is also in the all-in-one techniques page
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20-TECHS/complete>. I'm starting to wonder
if it should be on its own page... anyway, want input into how this is

Even though we only have 3 ARIA techniques, it seems we need similar
content for ARIA, as they're also using standard user agent notes sections.

There are now 18 Flash Accepted
techniques which I believe are part of what we agreed should be part of
the next publication but that haven't been ported out of the wiki. Most
of them are pending action items. We need to get these dealt with, it
takes me some time to port them so even if they were all ready today it
would take me a week or two. If we're going to do a publication soon
(there's a lot of pressure to do so), we need to keep this in mind.
Either that, or retract these from the next public draft and catch them
on the next round.

Also, a whole bunch of things have been zipping past my radar in the
form of emails, bugzilla entries, and tracker items. I'm seeing things
like "this should really be in place for the next public working draft"
on a bunch of them. But I'm not at all clear on what these are, where
they all are, whether they have or need approval from the WG, etc.  It
would be good for us to chase this stuff down and be really clear about it.


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 16:47:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:06 UTC