RE: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007

Appreciate all your work with this Jan. Here are my votes.

Proposal 1:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
changes)

Grammar: Change second sentence of first paragraph from: "They are
similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is
written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific a
Authoring Tool is tested against it." to "They are similar to the
"checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a
statement that will be either true or false when a specific Authoring
Tool is tested against it."

Proposal 2: A: Accept the Proposal

Proposal 3: C: Do not accept the proposal. I would like to see a
requirement for claimants to cite the authority for the conventions
being followed. "My application adheres to Windows UI conventions
version xxx, or Mac OS X, or X Windows, etc. Also a change in phrasing:
>From "Also, people are often familiar with accessibility conventions
employed by other applications built for a platform will find the
application easier to use" to "Also, people who are familiar with the
accessibility conventions employed by a specific platform while find
applications that adhere to those conventions easier to use."

Proposal 4:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
changes). Add words to the effect: "Except for those Benchmark documents
published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG. Or published
by those entities. Or perhaps this: "Neither W3C, WAI, nor WAI-AUWG take
any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance
claim or Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document that has not been
published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG." I suspect
the W3C will be publishing conformance claims and benchmarks for W3C
technologies and they should be held responsible for those just as
entities responsible for non-W3C technologies will be liable for any
claims made in the documents they publish.

Proposal 5: A: Accept the proposal

Proposal 6: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Change "1. manual
checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the
case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by
the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual test
procedure;" to "1. manual checking: where the tests are carried out by
authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by
instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where
authors must intervene to carry out the actual test procedure; 

Proposal 7: A: Accept the proposal

Proposal 8: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Add "dynamically
generated content" to the list of examples. For applications where
scripting or code rather than a template creates the output that must be
accessible.

Greg Pisocky | Adobe Systems | 703-883-2810 p | 703-678-3541 m
gpisocky@adobe.com 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Cc: 'WAI-AUWG List'
> Subject: Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007
> 
> 
> Just a reminder that I'm awaiting two more responses before 
> processing AUWG Poll #2.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0055.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:38:20 UTC