W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2006

Web Accessibility Toolbar DE 1.2: German language version now available.

From: Steven Faulkner <steven.faulkner@nils.org.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 14:51:17 +1000
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008301c68600$2fcf3af0$3a1610ac@NILSHP0044>


Walter Kiessl and his colleagues from WEB for ALL
[http://www.webforall.info/] have worked with WAT-C to produce the
German localisation of the Web Accessibility Toolbar:

Download WAT DE version 1.2 (758 KB , exe file)[
http://www.wat-c.org/WAT/versions/de/WAT_DE_1-2.exe ]

WAT-C thanks Walter and friends for their time and effort on this
project! - Friday, June 2, 2006

with regards

Steven Faulkner
Web Accessibility Consultant
vision australia - information & library service
454 Glenferrie Road
Kooyong Victoria 3144
Phone: (613) 9864 9281
Fax: (613) 9864 9210
Email: steven.faulkner@nils.org.au
www.accessibleinfo.org.au | www.wat-c.org

Download the Web Accessibility Toolbar
[http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/toolbar/]

Vision Australia was formed through the merger of the Royal Blind
Society
NSW, the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind, Vision Australia
Foundation and the National Information & Library Service.
ABN: 67 108 391 831  ACN: 108 391 831



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Judy Brewer
> Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2006 7:11 AM
> To: Ryonaitis@aol.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; wendy@w3.org; caldwell@trace.wisc.edu
> Subject: Re: Extending Deadline on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Review
> [was: Fwd:
> Call for Rev...
>
>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your question.
>
> Adding back the part on that from the extension notice, and
> then I'll add
> some more explanation:
>
> >>1. The deadline for comments on the Last Call Working Draft
> only applies
> >>to the Guidelines document itself. The supporting documents
> >>("Understanding WCAG 2.0" and "Techniques for WCAG 2.0") do
> not have a
> >>deadline for comments, though you may find them helpful in
> understanding
> >>or implementing the provisions in the guidelines. We
> welcome comments on
> >>the supporting documents in addition to comments on the
> guidelines, but
> >>we encourage you to focus your attention on the relatively short
> >>guidelines document itself during the review period.
>
> Your questions were:
>
> >Should we be reviewing and commenting on the document as we
> have been
> >doing but none of the WCAG 2.0 supporting documents?
>
> Your comments are welcome on any of the documents -- the Last
> Call Working
> Draft plus the supporting documents -- but the document for
> which comments
> are time-sensitive is the Last Call Working Draft.
>
> >What are we reviewing for if not clarity of the document?
>
> You can review it for a number of things: clarity of the wording;
> appropriateness of the requirements; priority of the requirements;
> feasibility; etc.
>
> >Don't the supporting documents help us to understand the document?
>
> Yes they do, which is why I said in the extension notice that
> you may find
> the supporting documents helpful in understanding or implementing the
> provisions in the guidelines. Let's say that you're reviewing
> & preparing
> comments on the Last Call Working Draft, and you find some
> success criteria
> that are hard to understand, or where you disagree with the
> requirement, or
> disagree with the priority level -- in those cases it could
> be important to
> check the relevant material in the supporting documents,
> since that would
> give you more information about how the Working Group thought
> that that
> success criteria could be achieved, or why they thought it
> was important.
> But if after reading the relevant material in the supporting
> document you
> still disagree with the provision, or the priority level,
> then the first
> place that we would need to fix it would be in the normative
> guidelines
> document. And if the problem in the guidelines document was
> insufficient
> clarity, then we need to get it clear in the normative
> guidelines document.
> Preparing constructive comments takes time, so we're
> encouraging reviewers
> to focus first on the guidelines document when preparing your
> comments. We
> still welcome your comments on the supporting documents now or later.
>
> >Are there any other documents that may help us all to
> understand each
> >part/section of the document?
>
> The "Understanding WCAG 2.0" is a pretty comprenhensive
> document that gives
> section by section info. But yes  at least three other
> documents may also
> be useful; all were mentioned in the review notice or the
> comments page:
>
> - Overview for WCAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20/
>
> - About Baselines and WCAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/
>
> - Instructions for commenting on WCAG 2.0
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/
> Note that there's a Q/A about commenting at the bottom of that page
>
> >Perhaps there are some internal documents that can be made
> public that can
> >help as well? I truly appreciate any feedback you can share.
> I feel that I
> >personally may have been looking at the entirety of the WCAG
> 2.0 documents
> >and wasting much needed time!
>
> If you want still more info, you can find all of the working
> documents for
> WCAG 2.0 in public space. Look at the working group home page, under
> "current work" which includes links to WCAG 2.0 issues lists and more:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/#Current
>
> I doubt that you've been wasting your time by reading the supporting
> documents, since it will have given you a lot more context.
> But when it
> comes to writing up the comments from your review, I'd
> suggest starting
> first with writing up your comments on the guidelines document itself.
>
> The Working Group aimed for a normative document that was
> relatively lean
> yet that could be a definitive technical reference that is technology
> independent and testable, accompanied by more in-depth
> supporting resources
> that people could go to when they needed more information in
> a particular
> area. We plan to eventually have even more supporting
> resources -- for
> instance, "How to meet WCAG 2.0 using HTML" would provide a developer
> working primarily in HTML with a simpler document about
> meeting WCAG 2.0 in
> that technology. I hope that this gives you more of a picture
> of how the
> documents relate to each other, and how you might focus your review.
>
> Let me know if you have more questions, and we look forward
> to your comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Judy
>
> At 03:00 PM 5/26/2006 -0400, Ryonaitis@aol.com wrote:
> >Hello All:
> >
> >I applaud the extension for comments especially with the
> summer holiday
> >season beginning. I have read the comments and have one
> simple question; I
> >apologize in advance if this has been previously asked.
> >
> >Your mail stated:
> >
> >"...but we encourage you  to focus your attention on the
> relatively short
> >guidelines document itself during the review period"
> >
> >I would appreciate your clarification. Should we be reviewing and
> >commenting on the document as we have been doing but none of
> the WCAG 2.0
> >supporting documents?
> >
> >What are we reviewing for if not clarity of the document? Don't the
> >supporting documents help us to understand the document? Are
> there any
> >other documents that may help us all to understand each
> part/section of
> >the document?
> >
> >Perhaps there are some internal documents that can be made
> public that can
> >help as well? I truly appreciate any feedback you can share.
> I feel that I
> >personally may have been looking at the entirety of the WCAG
> 2.0 documents
> >and wasting much needed time!
> >
> >Any recommendations or perhaps a review checklist would be
> great to help
> >my organization complete its review.
> >
> >Thank you in advance!
> >
> >Rob Yonaitis
> >HiSoftware Company & W3C Member
> >Founder & CTO
>
> --
>
> Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web
> Consortium (W3C)
> MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G530
> 32 Vassar Street
> Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
>


__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Later
for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  http://www.ellaforspam.com
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 04:52:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT