Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007

Thanks Tim.

I'll process the poll, put out a new editor's draft and hopefully get 
out a new poll data.

If you have objections to any of the proposals in the poll, please get 
them to the list ASAP.

Cheers,
Jan




Tim Boland wrote:
> 
> I agree with Greg's comments..
> 
> At 01:37 PM 9/20/2007 -0700, you 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 Friday, 21 September 2007 12:59:56 UTC