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

Re: AUWG Teleconference on 6 March 2006 (including agreed new wording)

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:19:34 -0500
Message-ID: <440CB576.8050400@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Jan Richards (Chair)
Greg Pisocky
Barry A. Feigenbaum
Tim Boland
Roberto Scano

> 1. Comments on Guidelines draft
> (a) items from TB
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2006JanMar/0017.html
> Draft responses from JR:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2006JanMar/0018.html


(1) in SC2 of A.2.5, change "styling" to "presentation"


(2)  The "Rationale" for checkpoint A.2.9 - REWORDING

Rationale: *Preview* features are provided in many authoring tools
because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how
content will appear to *end users* in a user agent. In order to enable
authors with disabilities to follow the same workflow as other authors,
they must have access to any preview features that exist.


(3) Note 1 of A.2.9 - REWORDING

Note 1: Authors, including those with disabilities, will not be
well-served if preview features diverge too much from the actual
functionality of available user agents. Therefore, preview features are
exempted from necessarily having to meet all of the other requirements
in Part A of this guidelines document, if they meet this checkpoint.

Note 2: It is understood that the accessibility of the content display
of a preview will be negatively affected if the content being rendered
is inaccessible or incomplete. For example, if markup tags are missing,
content may not be rendered properly.


(4) Def'n of preview - REWORDING

A non-editable view of the content that is intended to show how it will
appear and behave in a *user agent* (e.g. launching a browser to render
the content).


(6) A.2.9 Success Criteria - REWORDING

(1) If a preview feature is provided, then a method of returning from
the preview must be provided that meets all of the checkpoints in *Part A*.
(2) If a *preview* is provided, then either:
(a) it makes use of an existing user agent (e.g. a third-party browser 
or browser control), or
(b) the preview must meet all of the checkpoints in *Part A*.

> 4. F2F Ideas (last week of April)
> -Venice (RS to host)
> -Washington DC Area (TB at NIST to host)

The group made some decisions about the next couple of months:

- leaning towards Venice for the F2F at the end of April
- want at least 3 and possibly 4 days for the F2F
- F2F Goal: PRIMARY: Last Call Draft for ATAG 2.0  SECONDARY: New 
working draft for the techniques
- Stronger F2F preparation requirements
- NEW start time for AUWG conference calls - 3pm - allowing us to run 
2hrs if necessary.
- Jan to check into using bugzilla or a wiki to help track work
- Jan to make a list of ATAG checkpoints and assign members to thorough 
review of them in "random" order.

(I will pull this bottom stuff out into a different email)

Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 22:20:54 UTC

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