W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: New ATAG Workplan

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1095119957.414634558da5b@webmail.utoronto.ca>
To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

Hi Roberto,

To be more clear, I don't see any UAAG-relative checkpoints in ATAG, but 
perhaps we will be able to use the same or similar language as UAAG uses for 
our document's "administrative overhead" (afterall UAAG went to Rec in much 
stricter conditions than ATAG 1.0).

I also think that just as WCAG is adding text that refers to ATAG, we should 
be adding text that refers to UAAG and reminds authors that the requirements 
of that document favour structured content over unstructured content that 
attempts to control user experience pixel-by-pixel.


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

  Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca 
  Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
  Phone: 416-946-7060 
  Fax:   416-971-2896

Quoting "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>:

> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>     Da: "Jan Richards"<jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
>     Inviato: 13/09/04 23.01.36
>     A: "List (WAI-AUWG)"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
>     Oggetto: New ATAG Workplan
>     New ATAG Workplan (Assigned Sept 13, 2004)
>     • Do a more general review of UAAG to see where we do things differently
>     and if that is necessary - especially, examine conformance mechanism in
>     relation to that proposed in UAAG.
>     (Jan, Matt)
> This means a potentially new "uaag relative priority"  conformance level?
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 00:00:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:50 UTC