- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:31:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
As many conformance reviews as we can get are usful I would think - whether of the same tools or different ones, by authors with all kinds of disabilities, etc. For checkpoints like 7.1 I think that wide review and testing is the only way we are going to get really good evaluation. Charles On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 07:04 AM 2/3/2000 , Jutta Treviranus wrote: >Despite our recent impressive achievement, now is not the time to rest on >our laurels (grin). Fred Barnett, a member of the HTML Writers Guild's governing board who has experience using and reviewing authoring tools is interested in writing a review of Allaire's Homesite product to evaluate how it complies with ATAG. Would this be a useful project for him to undertake? The HTML Writers Guild's greatest resource is our huge membership base -- and our membership base includes a -lot- of people who use authoring tools. It may be possible to find more volunteers who likewise could spend some time evaluating their favorite authoring tools. Would -that- be a useful project as well? (If it's not possible/useful as a W3C project -- it could be useful as a HWG project posted on our AWARE Center site.) Opinions? -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/ -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011, Australia
Received on Friday, 4 February 2000 17:31:52 UTC