- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 15:21:12 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20040401150444.00a9c7f0@mailserver.nist.gov>
Attached is a start on my action item from Mar 22 AUWG telecon (to take priority 1 checkpoints from the QA Spec Guidelines and rate the latest ATAG2.0 WD against these checkpoints. The opinions are mine alone, and in going through the exercise more questions were raised in my mind than answers. Anyway, comments welcome. It seems to me that the Techniques may be more than "informative" from a testing point of view, since they are providing specific guidance on satisfying normative requirements in the Guidelines, so it may be difficult to separate the guidance from actually testing the requirements of the Guidelines in a testing environment. For Guideline 4 Techniques, it would be great if the techniques could be tied to the four types of authoring functionality in 1.1 of Guidelines (good and bad example for each); this is alluded to in the "3 AXES" text near the end of the Techniques document. Is the "tool type" mentioned in "breakdown by tool type" a reference to the four types? For the screenshots, would one need to get permission to use them? Are we promoting one product/technology over another if we use them? Would we need a disclaimer? Thanks and best wishes, Tim Boland NIST
Attachments
- text/html attachment: AUWG1.htm
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 15:21:38 UTC