Re: F2F and Partial credit scheme

My initial concerns are that the ATAG2.0 conformance model would be complicated 
by the introduction of two new classes of products, those that would just seek 
to conform to Part A (but go no farther into Part B), and those that would just 
seek to conform to Part B (but go no farther into Part A), in addition to those 
products that would seek to conform to both Parts A and B.  Also, would a 
disincentive be provided for a product to seek to conform to both Parts A and B 
by introduction of the proposed scheme?

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding.  I'm certainly open to discussion on the 
topic...

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST



    Quoting Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>:

> 
> Re: the F2F, does anyone want to host? Another possibility is CSUN, 
> which is in mid-March and often includes WAI meetings (I could check if 
> we have missed any deadlines for this).
> 
> Re: the partial credit scheme idea:
> 
> The "Partial Conformance" idea that Jutta had yesterday sounded 
> interesting...
> 
> Jutta didn't have chance to elaborate, but my first thought is that it 
> might involve two new categories of conformance:
> 
> "Partial Conformance to ATAG 2.0: Authoring Tool User Interface"
> (could be claimed if Part A is met to at least Level A)
> 
> "Partial Conformance to ATAG 2.0: Content Production"
> (could be claimed if Part B is met to at least Level A)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> Barry Feigenbaum wrote:
> > 
> > Agreed on F2F. I assume March is earliest we can do it. right?  I am not 
> > available the week of March 5.  
> > Will WCAG be "revised" LC by then?  Shouldn't we should delay until WCAG 
> > reaches this state before we release a LC.
> > 
> > Andi Snow-Weaver was (independently) stating the need for a "partial 
> > credit" scheme as I have tried several times in the past to get.  I know 
> > having some hard minimums of support is good for accessibility, but not 
> > always practical from a tool vendor point of view.  
> > 
> > For example, creating an accessible tool is quite independent from 
> > creating a tool that makes accessible content.  Achieving either is 
> > difficult, but getting
> > no level of compliance with only one of these achieved seems not 
> > satisfactory.
> > 
> > PS I have asked for a general review by IBMers (beyond Becky Gibson). 
> >  That will not time out by the stated deadline but should be ready by 
> > any F2F.
> > 
> > Barry A. Feigenbaum, Ph. D.
> > Tool Architect
> > Human Ability and Accessibility Center - IBM Research
> > www.ibm.com/able, w3.ibm.com/able
> > voice 512-838-4763/tl678-4763
> > fax 512-838-9367/0330
> > cell 512-799-9182
> > feigenba@us.ibm.com
> > Mailstop 904/5F-021
> > 11400 Burnet Rd., Austin TX 78758
> > 
> > Accessibility ARB Representative on SWG ARB
> > W3C AUWG Representative
> > Austin IBM Club BoD
> > Interface Technologies IDT Member
> > QSE Development TopGun
> > 
> > Sun Certified Java Programmer, Developer & Architect
> > IBM Certified XML Developer; OOAD w/UML
> > 
> > This message sent with 100% recycled electrons
> > 
> > 
> > *Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>*
> > Sent by: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
> > 
> > 01/11/2007 04:21 PM
> > 
> > 	
> > To
> > 	w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > cc
> > 	
> > Subject
> > 	Re: Joint call with WCAG-WG - 11 January 2006
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 13 January 2007 11:36:15 UTC