- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:52:48 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Thanks a lot Greg. If I get one more response I'll be able to process this poll, put out a new Editor's draft and send out Poll#3 tomorrow. Cheers, Jan Greg Pisocky wrote: > 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 20:52:42 UTC