- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:29:46 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi, The updated Editor's Draft is at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071122/WD-ATAG20-20071122.html Greg and Roberto could you contact me about the Checklist and Comparison documents? Thanks, Jan Jan Richards wrote: > > Thanks Greg, Tim and Roberto. I'll put out a new Editor's Draft on > Thursday. > > From there we need to update 3 documents: > > 1. the Techniques > 2. the Checklist, and > 3. the Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0 > > > I can do biggest piece...(1)...Roberto would you like to do (2)? and > Gregg you mentionned that you could do (3), is that still possible? > > If so I can send you the most up-to-date versions. > > Cheers, > Jan > > > > > > Greg Pisocky wrote: >> Everything's fine with one recommended change from the proposal... >> >> Change number [2] Rationale to read: "Some authors will benefit from >> support for understanding unusual words >> or abbreviations" >> >> Greg Pisocky, Adobe Systems >> gpisocky@adobe.com 703.883.2810p | 703.883.2850f | 703.678.3541m >> >> -----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 10:46 AM >> 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 Thursday, 22 November 2007 18:30:01 UTC