- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:43:43 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Thanks Tim. Tomorrow I'll put out a new editor's draft with the accepted changes (Items 1,2,4) and with the new proposed wording (Items 3,5) marked as new text. I'll also send out a Poll#2. (Note: If you haven't responded to Poll #1 and disagree with any of items 1, 2, 4 please respond to the poll within the next few days) Cheers, Jan Tim Boland wrote: > I accept the results that have been accepted without change.. > > Best, Tim Boland NIST > > At 04:29 PM 9/17/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >> This email attempts to address Barry's suggestions in >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0048.html, >> but IMPORTANTLY I still need another response to Poll #1 before I can >> process the results that both Barry and Roberto have accepted without >> change. >> >> Here's Poll #1 again: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0047.html >> >> I've just kept the issues that Barry made suggestions for: >> >>> ----- >>> Proposal 3: The "modified" text in "Relationship to the Web Content >>> Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)" >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#Relationship-To-WCAG >>> >>> Response: Accept the proposal (although it does not deal well with >>> the situation that someone chooses something other than a WCAG as the >>> guidelines for accessibility) >> >> Good point Barry...I propose the following text instead (and withdraw >> this question from poll #1): >> >> ATAG 2.0 relies upon *Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark"* documents >> to precisely specify what an evaluator interprets "accessible Web >> content" to mean in the context of an authoring tool and the Web >> content technologies that it produce and/or is implemented using. The >> recommended reference for the benchmark is the W3C-WAI Web Content >> Accessibility Guidelines (See *Note on other Accessibility Standards* >> [http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#other-standards]) >> >> due to the quality of the document and the process under which it was >> developed. >> >> The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is the W3C-WAI >> Recommendation that defines requirements for making Web content >> accessible to a wide range of people with disabilities. At the time of >> publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation *[WCAG10]*, >> and a second version of the guidelines is under development >> *[WCAG20]*. The evaluator of an authoring tool may select (and record >> in the conformance profile) either version of WCAG. However, >> developers should give consideration to the following when deciding >> which WCAG version to use in a product: >> >> [3 bullet points unchanged] >> >> >> >>> ----- >>> Proposal 5: Definition of "authoring session " >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070821/WD-ATAG20-20070821.html#definitions >>> >>> Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes) >>> suggest "no further opportunity to make changes." --> "no further >>> opportunity to make changes without starting another session." >> >> >> Good change. I'll make the change and withdraw this item from Poll #1. >> >> >> >>> ----- >>> Proposal 6: Modified definition of "authoring tool", "view" (which would >>> then contain "editing view" and "preview"), and "authoring tool user >>> interface" >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0040.html >>> PLUS see below for modification to "authoring tool" >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0043.html >>> Response: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes) >>> WRT the PLUS section. >>> ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or *collection of >>> software components*, that *authors* use to create or modify *Web >>> content* for USE BY OTHER PEOPLE. >>> (I'm aware and ok with the fact that this covers email systems that send >>> "Web content") >>> On the (...) comment, to me, an email (or similar, say wiki) system >>> should not be required to (but it is allowed to) be responsible for >>> assisting the author in prompting, evaluating or fixing email content >>> that was included from other sources (including forwarded email or >>> attachments). At most it should only be held accountable for the >>> actual content added by the author issuing the "send" request. >>> Although the AUWG clearly would include an email system as an >>> authoring tool (especially one like gmail), I'm not sure all email >>> system vendors would agree. For example, is an email system that >>> sends over the internet but uses private formats (vs say HTML) to >>> encode the mail so that only the same type of system can receive the >>> mail and render it considered to be an authoring tool (Lotus Notes >>> can work in this mode)? >> >> The thing about email systems is that simply by entering the email >> address of a Web-archived listserv they become authors of Web content >> that might be viewed by a very large number of people. Even pressing >> "Replying All" can send to content to a large number of people. >> >> So it seems to me that the the basic issue is that if a software lets >> you determine important details of other people's interactive >> experiences, then they are authoring tools. (On the other hand, if a >> tool lets me modify my own view of the Web - e.g. a personalized >> portal - it does lots of "authoring-like" things, but would not be an >> authoring tool by my proposed definition). >> >> That said, ATAG 2.0 compliance doesn't mean an in-the-author's-face >> experience, it just means the supports need to be in place if the >> author wants to use them. >> >> Regarding private formats: If the format is fairly basic (e.g. rich >> text and images) that will make conformance relatively easy. >> Conversely, if they throw in all sorts of ability to introduce >> accessibility problems, greater effort to meet ATAG 2.0 seems a >> natural result. >> >> 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, 17 September 2007 20:44:18 UTC