W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Fwd: Re: Fwd: Review of ATAG 1 last call against SpecGL last call

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:56:09 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

fyi - response from Charles..

>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:53:45 -0500 (EST)
>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
>To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
>Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>X-Original-To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Review of ATAG 1 last call against SpecGL last call
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org> archive/latest/4004
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <w3c-wai-au.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:53:46 +0000
>X-MailScanner-From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
>OK, might as well take this as official notification that the thing exists
>then. If I receive further comments I will pass them on.
>Tim, if you have any different conclusions to mine I would be glad if you
>cc'ed me or the qa list - you probably have a better understanding of specGL
>than I do. Which means the differences are interesting in terms of how an
>outsider understands specGL.
>And just by the by, the MUTAT tool, which is designed to allow people to run
>this kind of test and produce an EARL result which could be transformed into
>something like the HTML tale, or queried as part of a larger collection of
>RDF, is under repair by me. One of the test cases I am working on is SpecGL,
>but I could also do an ATAG-based version if you think this would be helpful.
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Tim Boland wrote:
> >
> >fyi - I also started on such an evaluation on ATAG 2 LC but did not finish
> >it yet..
> >
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:36:55 -0500 (EST)
> >>From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
> >>To: www-qa@w3.org
> >>
> >>Hi folks,
> >>
> >>I have looked at the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines last call
> >>document, and done a review of how well it meets the last call draft of
> >>SpecGL. The summary is that they conform to all but one requirement, and
> >>noted in the draft that they expected to conform to this final 
> requirement by
> >>the time the last call draft was published. They also implement many of the
> >>good practices.
> >>
> >>I will be sending the review to the group tomorrow because it is late
> >>already, but if anyone has time to look over it and wants to comment 
> quickly
> >>it is at http://www.w3.org/2005/01/cmn-atag-review
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 13:56:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC