W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Reviewer Comments: Last Call Version of the UAAG 1.0

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 04:36:38 -0400
To: "'Ian B. Jacobs '" <ij@w3.org>, "'Richard Premack '" <richardp@cityisp.net>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org '" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-id: <B49B36B1086DD41187DC000077893CFB03F75776@rosnt46.ets.org>
Comments below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian B. Jacobs
To: Richard Premack
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Sent: 7/2/01 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Reviewer Comments: Last Call Version of the UAAG 1.0

Look for IJ2: below.

Richard Premack (RP) wrote:

> -------
> Summary of more-than-simply-editorial questions to take to the
> Working Group:
> -------
>  - Should we remove speech output from the list of limitations
>    to the document since there are a number of requirements?


> >3.0 Specific Comments
> >
> >[1.1 Relationship to WAI accessibility guidelines]
> >
> >Last sentence in the first paragraph discussing UAAG 1.0 as one
> >of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the WAI:
> >
> >"These agents intersect and complement each other as follows":
> >
> >It appears that the 'agents' is not what was intended as this
> >paragraph discusses documentation not software. Instead, perhaps the
> >following would be appropriate:
> >
> >"These documents, whether in the form of guidelines or formal
> >specifications, intersect and complement each other as follows:"
> IJ: The word agent was intentional, but not a good
> choice. "Agent" here meant "actors in the accessibility drama":
> authors, developers, spec writers. I'll find better wording.
> RP: Might I suggest the word *stakeholders* to mean "actors in the
> accessibility drama"?  I see that usage quite a bit.

IJ2: Yes, I like that.

EH: Me too. I also appreciate Richard other comments.
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 04:38:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:30 UTC