W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2006

Questions on ATAG2.0 Guidelines?

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:41:35 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20060223083615.00c21ec8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Cc: frederick.boland@nist.gov
In conversation with Jan Richards on February 22 regarding getting a draft 
ATAG2.0 techniques ready for publishing to the AUWG list, I have noted the 
following items as (from the conversation) as possibly needing addressing 
in the ATAG2.0 Guidelines (NOTE: these items all refer to text included or 
missing from the current ATAG2.0 Guidelines [1]:

(1) in SC2 of A.2.5, change "styling" to "presentation" - motivation is
"presentation" seems a more generically used
word in W3C (used in contrast with "structure" in many discussions)?

(2) The "Rationale" for checkpoint A.2.9 states that "authors with 
disabilities need to
have access to a preview", but I thought previews were "optional" in 
authoring tools that
might seek to conform to the ATAG2.0 Guidelines (that is, an authoring tool 
didn't need to have a preview function in order to claim conformance to the 
ATAG2.0 Guidelines)?   Is there a consistency issue in this regard?

(3) Note 1 of A.2.9 stated "This requirement serves, for the preview 
features only, in lieu
of the other user interface accessibility requirements in Part A". This 
sentence seems unclear
to me, so perhaps some clarification is needed as to exactly what is meant 
by the "other"
requirements - which "other" requirements?

(4) Somewhere in the ATAG2.0 Guidelines, should it be stated that a 
"preview" is basically
meant a "user agent"?

(5) What does "same accessibility features" exactly mean as used in A.2.9 
SC1 Part (b)?
Perhaps clarification would help?  What specifically are these 
"accessibility features"?

(6) The text after "the following must be true.." in A.2.9 SC1 Part (b) seems
convoluted and confusing to me. Perhaps this text should be dropped, as it may
represent an "edge case/situation" which may never actually occur in 
practice (or occur rarely)
in the context of authoring tools claiming conformance to the ATAG2.0 
Guidelines?
NOTE: Dropping this text might simplify A.2.9 SC1 Part (b)?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST



[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ATAG20-20051123/
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 13:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:53 UTC