Re: my edits/comments on the latest doc.

Liddy,

Thanks for the in-depth edits at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2002OctDec/0031.html

Here is my reaction to your comments (I will not note where I am in
agreement):

1.2 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility
-While "Web Resources" makes sense the "Web Content" guidelines do still
apply to those services, etc.

1.3 How this document is organized
-I'm confused about the meaning of the first comment "I think the
integration you want..."

1.5 Conformance
-Would modify to "An example of an ATAG-friendly tool is ONE THAT
converts"

Checkpoint 1.4: 
- Maybe: "in a way that differs from the most likely browser rendering
of the content."

Checkpoint 1.5:
- Maybe two parts.
- (1) There must be some means to navigate the content via the document
structure (i.e. traversing the markup hierarchy).
- (2) That means must conform to Checkpoint 1.1.

Checkpoint 1.6:
-Update reference to Guideline 7.

GUIDELINE 2 INTRO TEXT:
-It worries me a bit too - I want to say something foundational though.

Checkpoint 2.1:
- For Success Criteria 1., "accessible" should not be there.
- Why "relevant" over "appropriate"? Relevant is probably harder to
define.

GUIDELINE 3: INTRO TEXT:
-"ideosyncratically" seems awkward here.

Checkpoints 3.1/3.2/3.3/3.4:
- I am still looking for feedback on my discussion about collapsing
these into a new, more general checkpoint (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2002OctDec/0020.html)
- Not sure about "implore" in 3.4.
- Do you have a definition for "Reasonable Author" and "Moderately
Expert"?

Checkpoint 4.2
-why the bold??? Answer: TYPO-should be removed.

Checkpoint 4.3
-*** why the ???? Answer: Because I'm not sure if this is a success
criterion or just nice.

Checkpoint 4.4
***why is 'all' not bold??? Answer: TYPO-should be removed.


THE END

---

Liddy Nevile wrote:
> 
> I have made a lot of mess on this version! I read the text very
> carefully - what might look like editorial comments are, in many
> cases, logic corrections, IMHO. Specifications need to be very
> precise and the language needs to be very positive and active - so I
> have made that sort of change too.
> 
> Liddy

-- 
Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  Web:   http://ultrajuan.ic.utoronto.ca/~jan/jan.html
  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 16:50:00 UTC