- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:57:50 -0400
- To: wendy@w3.org
- CC: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org, GreggV <po@trace.wisc.edu>
Wendy, Thanks for bringing this thread to our attention. The draft ATAG2.0 has a similar requirement for choosing technologies wisely (checkpoint 2.2, below). Currently it points to WCAG, which would cause it to automatically pick up any reference WCAG makes to UAAG: 2.2 Support formats that enable the creation of WCAG-conformant content. [Priority 1] Success Criteria (1 of 1): In order to give priority to a format, that format must have a published techniques document for meeting each WCAG checkpoint (The idea is that ATAG conformant tools can create content in a range of formats, but only those that are capable of serving as the basis for accessible authoring are allowed to be recommended to the author) Cheers, Jan Wendy Chisholm wrote: > Jan wrote: > >> 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) > > > There's a thread on the WCAG list [1] about referencing UAAG. You all > might be interested in what we've been discussing and we'll be > interested in your conclusions of your review. > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0615.html> > -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. 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
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 15:58:15 UTC