W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2005

Fwd: Call for Review: Working Draft of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051219235636.023a6300@localhost>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "Jutta Treviranus" <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>

Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:

This is a reminder that review comments are due by Wednesday, 21 December, 
on the 23 November 2005 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Working 
Draft.

Additional information on the document, and how to comment, is below.

Thank you,

- Judy

>Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:46:38 -0500
>To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
>Subject: Call for Review: Working Draft of Authoring Tool 
>Accessibility   Guidelines 2.0
>
>Dear WAI Interest Group Participants:
>
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is being 
>published as a Public Working Draft. It will be under review until 21 
>December 2005. Please read the following for information on the document 
>and how to comment. The document is available at:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ATAG20-20051123/
>
>WHAT IS ATAG 2.0?
>
>The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ATAG 2.0) is part of a 
>series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility 
>Initiative (WAI). The other guidelines in this series include the Web 
>Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the User Agent Accessibility 
>Guidelines (UAAG).
>
>ATAG 2.0 provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower 
>barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring 
>tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by 
>providing an accessible user interface to authors with disabilities, as 
>well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible 
>Web content by all authors.
>
>WHY A PUBLIC WORKING DRAFT, INSTEAD OF A LAST CALL WORKING DRAFT?
>
>This is a Working Draft that succeeds a Last Call Working Draft originally 
>published on 22 November 2004. This change in status was requested by the 
>Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) because the 
>issues raised by reviewers during the Last Call period led the working 
>group to make substantial modifications that may require further 
>refinement before proceeding again to Last Call. In particular, the 
>requirements for accessibility of the authoring interface, which in the 
>Last Call Working Draft strongly depended on an ISO document, have been 
>updated and expanded to remove that dependency. The new authoring 
>interface accessibility requirements (Part A) that have resulted draw 
>instead from the concepts in WCAG 2.0 and UAAG 1.0.
>
>Since the resulting document is substantially different from the previous 
>Last Call Working Draft, the Working Group is issuing this draft as a 
>regular Public Working Draft, and will re-issue an updated Last Call 
>Working Draft at a later date.
>
>HOW CAN I COMMENT?
>
>Please send comments by email to the following address by 21 December 2005:
>
>   w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>
>A public record of comments is available at:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/
>
>You may find the following overview helpful for context:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag
>
>In addition, Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0 is available though it 
>is not a Public Working Draft at the current time:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2005/11/techs.html
>
>QUESTIONS FOR COMMENT:
>
>The Working Group is particularly interested in discussion of the 
>following questions:
>
>1. Are the new authoring tool user interface requirements in "PART A: Make 
>the user interface accessible" adequate? Are the priorities of the 
>checkpoints appropriate?
>
>2. Does the updated conformance section, with its concept of "Content 
>Type-Specific WCAG Benchmark" seem like a workable mechanism?
>
>3. Are the requirements for checking and repair a reasonable compromise 
>given both the advantages of automation to the author, and the complexity 
>of development in these areas?
>
>WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE LAST CALL WORKING DRAFT?
>
>Since the last Working Draft of ATAG 2.0, the following changes have been 
>made:
>
>- "PART A: Make the user interface accessible" has been added to replace 
>the ISO document reference.
>- The conformance section has been moved ahead of the checkpoints in the 
>document and revised.
>- The requirements for Checking (Checkpoint B.2.2) and Repair (Checkpoint 
>B.2.3) have been clarified.
>- The glossary has been updated and a number of editorial changes made.
>
>NOTE: This message may be circulated to other lists, but please be careful 
>to avoid cross-postings.
>
>Thank you in advance for your review.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jan Richards, Interim Team Contact for the Authoring Tool Accessibility 
>Guidelines Working Group
>Judy Brewer, Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C

-- 
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-G530
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 05:10:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:23 GMT