- From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:52:37 -0400
- To: Ivo Gonçalves <ivo_mmm@hotmail.com>
- Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, mf@w3.org, tmichel@w3.org, dsr@w3.org
Dear Ivo, Thank you for your comments on the latest WCAG 2.0 Working Drafts. At 10:25 AM 7/25/2005, Ivo Gonçalves wrote: >I am somewhat displeased that apparently no one has of yet realized that >Accessability Keys are NOT device independent. There is the serious need >for a better alternative to those. Please specify which section of which document you feel needs to be changed and if possible, suggest wording that we can use. >Furthermore, is there any intention of considering the Speech Application >Language Tags (SALT) or part of its specifications to the WCAG 2.0 or the >future versions? I believe the W3C should take sometime considering SALT >as it does offer some fine tools and a decent alternative for the deaf people. Thank you for the pointer to SALT, I'm not sure about the rest of the WCAG Working Group, but I was unaware of this project. Does this overlap with W3C work on voice and multimodal applications or timed text? [1,2, 3] Or does this fill a gap between these technologies? There are many technologies the WCAG WG would like to write techniques documents about, for example we had hoped to publish "SVG Techniques for WCAG 2.0" at the time we go to Last Call. Unfortunately, due to lack of resources we are focusing our efforts on HTML, CSS, and Client-side Scripting. In the future, we expect to address other technologies, such as SMIL, SVG, and MathML. Please let us know if any of the success criteria would be difficult to implement in SALT or if there are any success criteria missing that might be essential to making a SALT application accessible. Thank you, --wendy [1] <http://www.w3.org/Voice/> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/> [3] <http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/>
Received on Friday, 12 August 2005 00:52:56 UTC