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

Re: Classification of AT in ATAG2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:27:21 +0100
Cc: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
To: gdeering@acslink.net.au
Message-Id: <1FD11B1C-3721-11D8-BA3C-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

[moved to ATAG list, bcc to xtech so they know where it went]

Well, there are three perspectives here. Geoff sees the document as 
"fundamentally flawed in its generalisation". Matt seems to think it is 
not sufficiently complete to cover what Geoff needs. And I maintain 
that in fact the guidelines document pretty much gets it right.

What is important, in my opinion, are the techniques which demonstrate 
how to do this in different types of system. Lookng briefly over the 
techniques work it is clear that there has been some substantial work 
done since the group started, but there is a need for more.

Perhaps a few detailed suggestions about what is missing would help 
determine whether they are the sort of thing that should be a new 
checkpoint, or whether they are in fact techniques for existing 



Geoff Deering wrote:

>>> 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.
>> Matt May responded:
>> 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 
>> functionality.
> I'm afraid I don't see it as incomplete, I see it as fundamentally 
> flawed in its sweeping generalisations.  For it to have got to this 
> stage and in this form indicates to me that the people working on this 
> document just do not understand this concern.  Maybe I am mad and just 
> an isolated case, and maybe there is evidence for that:-), but when I 
> have raise this issue with other developers I feel they also share 
> this despair at the quality of technical competence in addressing 
> these issues.
Received on Thursday, 25 December 2003 16:28:31 UTC

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