RE: AUWG Poll #6: 12 November 2007

I approve items also.

Best, Tim BolandAt 01:53 PM 11/17/2007 +0100, you 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

Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 19:34:59 UTC