Re: Joint call with WCAG-WG - 11 January 2006

Hi Tim,

re: dependency of LC on the progression of WCAG WD:

Our dependency remains. So I should have said our goal would be to 
produce a doc that can go to LC when WCAG does.


re: distilling comments into issues and using a DB:

There's a lot of overhead in that approach and we have a lot less 
support-hours than WCAG. So far, I think the comment table is ok. If 
this becomes clearly unusable we'll have to think of something else. 
BTW: I've attached the newest table which I will also be putting up on 
the site once I get an straggling comments today. (We could do a hybrid 
and distill into numbered issues in the table)


re: the Techniques doc:

I think we should be able to publish a draft in the next month or so. 
Though remember that all members of the WG have technique review action 
items outstanding.

Cheers,
Jan


boland@nist.gov wrote:
> I also think the number of comments is sufficient to justify another f2f..
> not sure of the best time or venue for this  (dependencies with progression
> of WCAG WD?)
> 
> 
> Will the comments be distilled into specific issues like WCAG WG does?  With 
> issue numbers and database tracking?
> 
> 
> The point was raised today about a reference to the latest ATAG2.0 
> implementation techniques.  Will they be published along with the next ATAG2.0 
> WD in the next announcement?  
> 
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
> 
> Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I thought that call went quite well.
>>
>> At this point, I think the pile of comments is big enough to justify 
>> another F2F - the goal of which would be a Last Call WD.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> 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