- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:46:11 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi All, I though that was a very productive F2F...resulting in this Editor's Draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071112/WD-ATAG20-20071112.html There are just a few minor things (marked with "@@") to clear up before I start the publication process (I would really appreciate responses by Friday, Nov. 16th.): [1] A.1.2.2: I propose we reword this (my rationale is that it is unrealistic to expect AT's to chase after custom API extensions for each authoring tool as the current wording does) - NEW WORDING: A.1.2.2 Accessible Alternative (user interface "chrome", content display): If any non-Web-based authoring user interface functionality is not supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s), then a separate accessible alternative for that functionality that is supported by the implemented accessibility platform architecture(s) is provided and a description of the inaccessible functionality appears in the conformance claim. [2] A.4.1: Rationale: Some authors will benefit from support with unusual words or abbreviations. [3] In "What does a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document include?", bullet 4, I propose the parenthetical statement in "Any assumptions about user agents available to authors or end users (related to the "user agent supported" concept in WCAG 2.0)". My Rationale: Was to explain why we were asking for this info. [4] Definition of "user interface component" - I propose adding the second sentence in the following: @@A part of the user interface "chrome" or content display (including renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function. In ATAG 2.0, the term is used to denote any part of the user interface of the authoring tool involved with display or control.@@ My Rationale: To be more clear since we use this term a lot. Cheers, Jan
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 15:47:37 UTC