Re: AUWG Poll #5: 15 October 2007

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your comments.

Greg Pisocky wrote:
> Question 1: 
>  
> Response B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)
>  
> I don't understand the question. Save status techs would include EARL? I 
> agree with the criteria, Save status, the accessibility status of 
> content must be saved... I don't understand the notation concerning 
> EARL. If that has some bearing on the success critieria, I would like to 
> know more. Please clarify.

I just meant that EARL would likely be one possible technique for doing 
this.

> Proposal 2: B.2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism
>  
> Response B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify changes)
>  
> Introduce language that it applies to preauthored content within that 
> environment and addresses the issue of context, otherwise this is not 
> implementable. What do I mean? Let's say a gif image is being used in a 
> variety of applications. By itself, the GIF image does not have 
> accessibility properties associated with it. Only within the environment 
> does it acquire those and have any context. Also it's not an all purpose 
> proposition. Because context matters once more. Appropriate alternate 
> text in one instance (fully accessible) may not be appropriate for 
> another instance. This problem is manifested in a clipart library, the 
> example being cited. Indeed within the library fully accessible tagged 
> content might adhere to an indexing convention appropriate to the 
> production environment but which does not apply to items used in that 
> library when placed in finished content. Otherwise this is a AAA 
> requirement. It's my old mantra, status changes depending upon where one 
> is in a workflow, attempting to fix that status in an asset library I 
> believe works at cross purposes to our intent here.

OK let's put this off to the F2F.

> Proposal 3: Definition of "template selection mechanism"
>  
> Response A: Accept the proposal
> 
> Proposal 4: Definition of View (Sub-terms are "Editing View" and "Preview"):
>  
> Response A: Accept the proposal
>  
> Proposal 5: Modify the definition of "authoring tool user interface" to 
> make use of "view".
>  
> Response A: Accept the proposal (including the Content Display 
> Accessibility Exemption which addresses the work in
> process considerations I am so passionate about).

OK, that's part of the proposal.

I'm currently processing the poll and hope to have a new Editor's draft 
out today. This will be the last one before the F2F.

Cheers,
Jan



>  
> Thanks
>  
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> 	
> 
> *Greg Pisocky*
> Accessibility Specialist
> Adobe Systems Incorporated
> 8201 Greensboro Dr., Suite 1000
> McLean, VA 22102 USA
> 703.883.2810p,   703.883.2850f
> 
> 703.678.3541m
> gpisocky@adobe.com <mailto:gpisocky@adobe.com>
> 
> www.adobe.com/accessibility <http://www.adobe.com/accessibility>
> 
>  
> 
>  

-- 
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 Friday, 26 October 2007 19:37:55 UTC