Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007

Greg,

Thanks for your comments, my responses (to those items not marked "A: 
Accept the Proposal") are in-line.

-Jan

> 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."

JR: Editorial change - I will make it once I get one more acceptance.


> 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."

JR:
1. Point taken...I'll take this one back to the drawing board - since it 
was also meant to refer to Web-based UI conventions etc. (so I'll remove 
the checkpoint wording aspect from Poll#2)

2. Greg: Do you agree with it's new position in "PRINCIPLE A.1: 
Authoring tool must facilitate access by assistive technologies"?

3. Also I assume you meant: "Also, people who are familiar with the
accessibility conventions employed by a specific platform WILL find
applications that adhere to those conventions easier to use."
...this is editorial - I will make it once I get one more acceptance.



> 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.

JR: OK I'll put the following in as proposed text (an withdraw this item 
from Poll#2)

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.


> 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; 

JR: Editorial change - I will make it once I get one more acceptance.


> 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.

JR: I think that change is minor enough to make if I get one more 
acceptance.

Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 12:57:53 UTC