- From: Karen Mardahl <karen@mardahl.dk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:07:04 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi I have posted an ATAG20 doc with my comments interspersed at http://www.mardahl.dk/atagsandbox/ I put in a background color to the class editornotes because I wanted my comments to be clear whether you are reading it on the computer at the meeting or on paper. It's not design prize material, but it is distinguishable from the rest!!! I only wrote brief comments and included suggested text in the ATAG20 doc. Further comments/thoughts are included here - didn't want to muddle to ATAG with them. Talk to you tomorrow! regards, Karen * * * * * * KM's Change list for ATAG20 Working Draft 20012004 1) I restructured sentences in Status. Moved a few sentences to improve reading, but did not add or delete words. * * * 2) Are we OK in the Status section with regard to rules about patents? In http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules - item 1.1.2.9: uses the term "MUST" together with patents. I was bit uncertain so I just want to raise the issue. * * * 3) Cosmetic change: reversed order of "the" and "all" in Guideline 1 intro text: * * * GUIDELINE 1: Ensure that the tool itself is accessible: This guideline requires that the design of all aspects of the authoring tool, including the user interface, installation procedure, documentation, and help files, must be accessible. This entails following *all the* applicable accessibility guidelines (Checkpoint 1.1) as well as other considerations specific to authoring interfaces. * * * 4) Shouldn't we change all instances of "user interface" with "authoring interface"? Re: consistency? I'm on the lookout for other words posing the same problem. * * * 5) I need clarification on 2.6 Success Criteria: * * * Success Criteria: (updated 22 July) Any Web content (e.g. templates, clip art, multimedia objects, scripts, applets, example pages, etc.) preferentially licensed (i.e. better terms of use for users of tool than for others) for users of the tool, must conform to WCAG. It's the preferentially licensed thing that throws me. Isn't it an "either you conform or you don't"? This preferentially licensed makes me think of a loophole. Can someone give an example? * * * 6) Guideline 2.7 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2] Rationale: Markup that is not recognized by an authoring tool may have been added to enhance accessibility. Also, newer XML-based languages, such as XHTML 1.1, allow authors to include multiple languages in a single document, via namespaces. In the future, documents may contain metadata, including accessibility information, in another namespace. Authoring tools must not remove or change [@@] this information when it is encountered. This makes me think of the introduction of standards not yet widely distributed and used - perhaps used only by experience authors. Should this concept of "the future and evolving technologies be brought it, or is it implied here?" And does the "must" here need to follow RFC standards and be <strong> or is it only when it is in a success criterion? * * * 7) In my comment to "Specific consideration when providing this guidance" just prior to guideline 3.4, I wanted to get rid of what I thought was awkward wording. In writing, negations should be avoided if possible. 3.4 states what is to be done. The previous paragraph is a preface and doesn't need to be that detailed. I am not saying my sentence is perfect! I am just proposing it! 8) I moved the Rationale of 3.8 to 3.7 as it seemed to fit better there. Guideline 3.8 suddenly gave me lots of problems. This guideline talks about modeling and examples - as separate things. I can only interpret that to mean that yes, there should be examples of some editing features, but the whole tool itself should be an example of accessibility. Accessibility should permeate its very soul, you might say! * * * 9) Clicking some Checkpoints listed takes to an unexpected spot in Techniques. ATAG2.0 Guideline 3.8 takes you to tier 4! Ensure that the checkpoint number in ATAG20 is truly the correct Technique reference. The coding can be fixed later. * * * 10) I was trying to get the feel of the updated doc with the latest additions to the Glossary. As I write these lines, I did not add the new terms to the Glossary yet. As we have agreed upon them in telephone conferences, they did not have a high priority to be included in this "personal" draft.
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 19:07:04 UTC