- From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:43:19 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish >Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:12:27 -0800 >Thread-Topic: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish >thread-index: AcGEq9WEF5PUbmYjRQWI5HODpdBlZQAOy7hQ >From: "Heather Swayne" <hswayne@microsoft.com> >To: "Jutta Treviranus" <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca> >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2001 22:12:28.0294 (UTC) >FILETIME=[6ADA8A60:01C184EC] >Status: > >Sorry, a project that was supposed to be finished last week slipped. > >1) my vote would be "Set 4 (Emmanuelle)" -- but I'm not highly >passionate about any choice. 16x16 is just to small to really get any >value, but I'm not positive it's needed so I'm OK with any decision. > >2) not sure I fully understand this, but I think option 3 is closest to >what I believe. The authoring tool could use a checker to identify what >all text is needed (without first adding dummy text). I don't really >see a conflict between 2.2 and 3.4. > >3) totally agree, combine away. > >4) sorry, I know nothing of conversion tools. So I don't feel >comfortable weighing in either way. > >5) fine. Never was really big on that whole English thing... :) > >6) OK by me, but I don't have the time to write it, and I think we could >release without it. > >Again apologies for the delay in response. > >Heather Swayne > >P.S. this e-mail was written using voice dictation technology so please >excuse any "voice mistakes" > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jutta Treviranus [mailto:jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca] >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 6:30 AM >To: Jim Allan; Heather Swayne; David Senf; Marjolein Katsma >Subject: Need general consensus on Techniques edits before we publish > >Could you please respond to the following questions by the end of >today so that we can publish the Techniques Document. > >Thanks Jutta > > >All AU working group members, >Before we publish the Techniques Document to TR we need consensus on >a number of issues. Could everyone please respond by Thursday the >13th. >The issues are as follows: > >1. Which Icons should we be using. To view the candidate icons please >go to: >http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/sources/techimages/icons/Overview.html and >follow the thread "Au Techniques: Icons" on the list. > >2. We need to resolve inconsistencies regarding advice on default >alt-text, for this please follow the thread: "Au techs/ ATAG errata > >3. We need agreement on the proposal to move techniques from 3.3 to >1.4, see thread " [AU Techniques] moving techniques for 3.3" > >4. Does everyone agree with the proposed additional techniques >relevant to conversion tools, see the thread titled "[AU techniques] >Conversion tools" > >5. We need agreement on the proposed rewording of the required >terminology. See the thread "AU techs - change "[required]" and >explain it" > >6. Should we add the priority/conformance section? See thread: "AU >techs ad priorities and conformance" > >Please make your opinion known by this Thursday. If I don't hear from >you by noon on Thursday, I might follow up individually. > >Thanks Jutta
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2001 21:43:40 UTC