- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:57:11 -0400
- To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050926085712.02056390@mailserver.nist.gov>
Hi, I attempted in the attached HTML file to summarize and condense all of the comments received during the past week that may pertain to G2.5L2SC2 (thanks to everyone for input). In performing this exercise, I focused on the "critical components" of the earlier draft I sent [1], and made following changes made to earlier draft: (1) only updated "key terms", "intent", and "techniques" sections ("critical" sections) - left other sections alone (2) used "situations" as per Gregg's template [2] and made other terminology changes to match this template (2) used Andi's definition for "input error" (with input from Makoto and others - thanks!) (3) proposed a definition for "user" (for the Guidelines Glossary)(NOTE: There is a definition for "author" in ATAG2.0, and a definition of "user agent" in WCAG, and "user" is a "level" above "user agent" in some sense in a "hierarchy" relating to content ("author", "user agent", "user (or end-user)")? (4) incorporated Sofia's example as Situation A and and presented previous work as Situation B, with associated OPTIONS for each and technology-specific techniques included for both situations (both labelled with "A.." or "B.." to refer back to the specific situations). (NOTE: I included two situations for completeness, even though they may be somewhat duplicative or at different "levels", and maybe only SITUATION A should be kept since it seems more specific?). If the situations are thought by the group to be sufficient and specifically applicable to G2.5L2SC2, the next step may be to go through all the techniques and decide which ones really belong. In such decisions, what (objective?) criteria will be used to determine if a technology-specific technique should be included? Also, I have some notes in the text of the attached HTML file to indicate questions/issues I still had.. Apologies for sending this so late, but I attended the W3C WAI Authoring Tools WG face-to-face meeting Sept 21-23 in McLean, Virginia, and so was quite busy with that meeting.. Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamc/2005Sep/att-0028/guidedoc1.htm [2]: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/09/end-to-end/text-equiv-informative.html
Attachments
- text/html attachment: guidedoc2.htm
Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 13:58:12 UTC