W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Classification of AT in ATAG2

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:43:22 -0800
Message-Id: <AF90D366-2E97-11D8-88D0-000393B628BC@w3.org>
Cc: WAI-XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
To: gdeering@acslink.net.au

On Dec 10, 2003, at 6:12 PM, Geoff Deering wrote:
> Someone on that list asked me to take a look at ATAG2, so I did, but 
> have not had time to address the issues I found until now.  I did have 
> a discussion off list with 2 W3C people related to these areas, but it 
> seems that the issues I raised did not register as major concerns to 
> them.

Not a major concern? I'm composing this message on a flight home from 
the XML 2003 conference where I presented to vendors of content 
management systems on making their tools more accessible using ATAG. 
Geoff, I really don't know how much more serious I can be about this.

When we exchanged emails, I told you specifically that I take this need 
seriously, and that we are working on ways to make ATAG more usable to 
CMS developers. There is no change since we talked because there has 
been no new draft since we talked. We are aiming for a new draft in 

The paper I submitted:

> My point is, as it stands, ATAG2 does not clearly define each of these 
> authoring environments and classify its guidelines accordingly.  
> ATAG2, as a document, bundles all these tools into the one basket, not 
> defining which classification of tools should be compliant with which 
> set of guidelines.

This is because the draft is incomplete. It is an omission which is 
being remedied in the process of moving things forward. We _will not_ 
be allowed to proceed to Recommendation if we do not have this 

> What is needed is clear classifications of these AT in the document. 
> For instance;
> Application software needs to comply with check point A,B,C, etc
> Web Based form AT need comply with XYZ
> Scripts need to comply with OPQ
> whatever.

This is already in ATAG 1, in the form of conformance icons. It will be 
done in a clearer and more logical fashion for each tool type in ATAG 
2. I said this to you then, and I'm saying it to you again, in public, 
now. It's not done yet. When we advance the document, it will be. Your 
comments are noted, and reflect the consensus of the working group.

> I was not allowed access to the ATAG list even though I eventually 
> said I would agree to the charter (do the work necessary to address 
> these issues), so I was given access to this list as the appropriate 
> one and told to post it here.

False. I specifically pointed you to the document for how to join the 
Authoring Tools Working Group. Here it is again:

On Oct 16, 2003, at 8:27 AM, Matt May wrote:
> I noticed your xtech request, but didn't see one for AU.
> Do you wish to join the AUWG as a participant? If so, the procedure 
> and requirements for doing so are at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/joining

You may join the list by sending the necessary information. I never 
disallowed you access to anything. For that matter, the 
w3c-wai-au@w3.org list is open for public comment, and is noted in the 
document as the place to send comments on the draft:

"Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: 
w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public archives). Please note that this document may 
contain typographical errors. It was published as soon as possible 
since review of the content itself is important, although noting 
typographical errors is also helpful."

Received on Sunday, 14 December 2003 19:43:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:29 UTC