Hi all, After reviewing the WCAG 2.0 Last Call, I'm glad to say I don't have any major concerns from a UAAG 2.0 perspective. I think the "accessibility supported" concept is a good one that puts a nice focus on the role of the user agent. (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#accessibility-supporteddef) Here are some other thoughts: Conformance: I think listing the user agent tested on should be required for increased transparency. 1.1.1 - Media, Test, Sensory - Suggest breaking this complicated bullet into it's 5 parts 1.4.1 - Not sure Note 1 is necessary...other forms of perception are covered in several places including later in 1.4: "Note 1: This Success Criterion addresses color perception specifically. Other forms of perception are covered in Guideline 1.3." 2.3.1 - Ed: "Web pages do" link 2.2.5 - Exception needed for unsubmitted data? as in ATAG 2.0 3.3.4 - Maybe make more general by including examples as e.g.s - as it stands sending emails unlikely to be included -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 17:30:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 January 2008 17:30:04 GMT