- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:58:44 -0500
- To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <424837C4.3060604@utoronto.ca>
The various points from the bug description are listed below along with proposed actions: > I don't understand why the "rationales" are designated as > "normative".. ACTION: Change wording of line: FROM A rationale for the checkpoint. (Normative) TO A rationale for the checkpoint. (Informative) > Perhaps Section 3 material should be moved to before the > Guidelines, since it mentions priorities and a reader > might want to know this material before accessing the > Guidelines, and conformance is an important subject that > should be "up front" ACTION: Attempt to maintain consistency with other WAI GL's, but WCAG 2.0 has conformance info before guidelines and UAAG 1.0 has them after. JR will contact WCAG-GL about this, since that is still a draft. > If an offering claims conformance to Level AA ATAG2.0 by immediately > passing all the Level AA tests first, does it also conform by > default to Level A (assumed to pass the Level A tests by default, > as a way of saving testing effort and resources)? I assume not > from Figure 1 in Section 3?, but this is not explicitly stated.. > What constraints are there on the various levels (subdivisions)? ACTION 1: Add line: Note: Conforming to a higher level (e.g. Double-"A") automatically entails conformance to a lower level (e.g. Single-"A") as well. ACTION 2: Edit figure for clarity: Attached. > A list of changes from ATAG1.0 to ATAG2.0 needs to be included > (probably as an appendix), as well as whether the specification > allows extensions ACTION: An updated draft is attached (this will almost certainly change as last call comments are addressed. > PPPS Any deprecated features from ATAG1.0 to ATAG2.0 (see previous) > need to be identified; if there are any, then ATAG2.0 needs > to define how to handle them ACTION: These are identified in the attached ATAG version comparison document. Unlike a format recommendation, I do not believe that ATAG 2.0 has to do anything to "handle" deprecated features. Cheers, Jan -- 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
Attachments
- text/html attachment: Comparison_of_ATAG1.0_and_2.0.html
- image/png attachment: conformance.png
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 16:59:33 UTC