- From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:12:41 -0400
- To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Thanks for your hard work on this document. I have two points for discussion, first a general concern, and then a point on "content-type" and "technology" debate.. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Point 1: General Concern: My main concern is that it has been almost a year since the release of the last public working draft (was dated November 22, 2004), and this latest public working draft represents a substantial (in my opinion) reworking of the earlier public working draft. Thus, I think that a more detailed explanation of the rationale or motivation for such extensive changes to the earlier working draft (as well as a possible listing in more detail of the changes from the earlier public working draft) should be added, perhaps in the "Status" section (where there is a very brief reference to the "fairly extensive" changes" and "new set of requirements", but I think more is needed). The reason why I think more is needed is that the public needs to understanding the evolution in Authoring Tools specification and requirements to appreciate the progression of the ATAG working drafts for possible future acceptance as ATAG Guidelines. This way, when a member of the public has the two working drafts "side by side", an informed comparison may be made to "make sense", as to not only what changed between the two but why it changed. End of Point 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Point 2: "Content Type" vs. "Technology" For the "content-type" vs "technology" discussion, I did locate a definition of "content-type" in the context of HTML [1]. I think we need to decide exactly what term(s) we want to use in context of authoring tools, by first considering the available definitions of terms, and then determining which (or both?) may apply appropriately and correctly to the ATAG requirements.. End of Point 2--------------------------------------------------- Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-content-type At 09:59 AM 10/24/2005 -0400, you wrote: >I have attached the ATAG 2.0 document that I have been preparing to >publish as a public working draft. (hopefully for the end of the week if >the Technology vs Content Type issue is worked out, see below) > >There have been a few changes that probably that rise above the level of >being editorial: > >- the changes already stated in: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005OctDec/0010.html > >- the status section has been reworked to conform with pub rules. > >- section "1.5 Relationship with other guidelines and standards" has been >greatly shortened and now primarily points to the new WAI components doc. > >- checkpoint A.1.? proposed in: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2005JulSep/0080.html >has been added as proposed text. > >- the "Note for Web-Based tools" have been moved into the Success Criteria >box as "For Web-Based Interface Components" because they are normative. > >And as a bonus - I have updated the last call comment table to explain all >of our responses to the issues raised at that time. (see attached) > >If ANY of these changes is a concern, please send a message to the list. > >************************************************************************* > >We still need a decision on Technology vs. Content Type! The biggest pro >for "technology" is that it is the term that WCAG uses. > >At the moment all of the body text is "Content Type" but I won't changed >the glossary entry until there is resolution. > >************************************************************************* > >Cheers, >Jan > >-- >Jan Richards, M.Sc. >User Interface Design Specialist >Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) >Faculty of Information Studies >University of Toronto > > Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca > Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca > Phone: 416-946-7060 > Fax: 416-971-2896 > > > > >
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 15:14:01 UTC