- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:38:03 -0500
- To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- CC: 'WAI-AUWG List' <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Thanks Roberto! Everyone else please let me know ASAP: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071112/WD-ATAG20-20071112.html Cheers, Jan Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote: > All agreed with Jan proposals. > Sorry for late due to DSL problems here (one month that I've got a powerful > 2Kb DSL instead of 4MB :-D) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Jan Richards > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:46 PM > To: WAI-AUWG List > Subject: AUWG Poll #6: 12 November 2007 > > > 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 > > > > > > -- 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 Monday, 19 November 2007 18:37:45 UTC