The next round: responses needed

Hi, all. Thanks to everyone who contributed to our work on techniques
and category 1 issues for SC 1.3.

On yesterday's call, the Working Group approved a couple  of our drft
techniques and definitions. They have also asked us to some more work on
several of the items. Basically, this means updating the drafts to
address concerns raised in the survey responses and/or on the call.
Becky will take a first pass at these changes; we can then review and
suggest any additional changes. I'd like to do this soon so we can do an
updated survey-- one that includes only the items that the Working Group
didn't approve yesterday.

The next guideline on our plate is GL 2.4. Loretta has agreed to prepare
a table like the one Becky did for 1.3, so we can see what exists in
draft form and what remains to be done from the ground up. I just took a
quick look and there are a number of draft techniques for 2.4 that are
listed in the WIKI at
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Category:General_Techniq
ues. For example, there are some that apply to SC 2.4.2 (multiple ways
to locate content within a set of delivery units) and 2.4.3 (repeated
blocks of material) as well as 2.4.4 (Delivery units have titles), 2.4.5
(programmatic references to other delivery units-- needs work, currently
says nothing about frames for example), and 2.4.6 (descriptive titles,
headings, and labels [nothing about labels in this one!]..
So we've got a starting point! I know that none of these has any tests,
and I'm not sure which ones have HTML or CSS or Scripting techniques.
Loretta's review will give us more precise information.
The two remaining guidelines (after 1.3 and 2.4 I mean) are 3.1 and 4.1.

There are also draft General Techniques for 3.1 (they may not be in the
WIKI yet-- might still be somewhere in the archive, or maybe in the 30
June draft of General Techniques). And there are some HTML techniques as
well for 3.1.
Cwould someone volunteer to create the "status"  table for GL 3.1? (Use
Becky's 1.3 table as a template, please!)

4.1 is a different story, I suspect. The guideline itself has been
rewritten (so that it now refers to AT ompatbility rather than using
technology according to spec), and of course there are new SC: 4.1.1
didn't exist till the 23 November draft, and the other SC used to live
under GL 4.2 (and I'm not sure there were techniques for them).

So it may be a good idea to get a headstart on 4.1.  I'd like to ask for
another volunteer to create the status table for this, again using
Becky's 1.3 table as a template.

Please respond by Monday if you're willing and able to create one of the
status tables.

Thanks!

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility

Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 15:29:02 UTC