- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:59:15 -0500
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Tim, I think I have responded to most of your points. Could you scan over them and let me know where you disagree with my responses? Cheers, Jan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: re: My ATAG Glossary action items (draft)] Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:48:04 +0000 Resent-From: w3c-wai-au@w3.org Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:47:22 -0500 From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca> To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org> This is a continuation of my response to Tim's message (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009JanMar/0000.html) which was very comprehensive: NOTE: This is very long and I am not yet done > Task #1: Terms in Normative Parts possibly either needing definition (if > not already defined?) or additional explanation/examples, or further > thought in relation to objective testability/conformance (consult > http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-terms-inline-gp > for more information on defining terms in specifications - In what follows, > I list the section first, and then the terms possibly needing > additional clarification): > > Global NOte: the "[UAAG 1.0]" designations should be linked to > appropriate version/spec.. JR: Agreed. > In "Definition of authoring tool" section: > > application JR: Would "software application" help this term become common usage? > Web content (link to definition?) JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. > embedded/stand-alone? JR: Maybe we don't need the text that says: "(embedded and stand-alone)" > (Web content) technologies JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. > In Notes on the Definition following, for #1, add "Web" in front of > "content"?, and JR: OK > "live content authoring tool" may need definition > For #2, add "authoring" in front of "tool"? JR: Suggest change to: "Applications that are used to create content in real time..." so we don't need a def'n > Is the "Components of Web Accessibility" section normative or > informative (not clear)? JR: Informative...see "This section is informative, except where noted." at top of Introduction. Maybe definition of authoring tool needs to come out of Intro since this is the only normative part - now that conformance stuff has gone. > If normative, then after "Two Parts", "accessible authoring tools" > should be underlined JR: This is in "Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document" which is also Informative. > (not just authoring tools)? Maybe a definiton (or expansion) of "disabilities"? JR: I think we are ok with the text we have a the top of the introduction : "...more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities." > In "Part A", consider definitions for "authoring tool user interface" JR: OK-we have def'n so just a link is needed. >, and "accessible"? JR: WCAG doesn't define I suggest we don't either. > Provide a link for "WCAG2.0"? JR: OK > Maybe "augmented display and control" definition? JR: I think the def'n of "assistive technologies" covers this > Also "perceive", "operate", JR: WCAG2 doesn't define (and the wording here is informative) > "user interface components"? JR: I suggest "its user interface components"=> the authoring tool's user interface which has a def'n. > In "Part B" section, add "authoring" in front of "tool"? JR: OK > For #2, consider definitions for "actions" JR: Authoring actions is a defined term. > and "features"? JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text) > FOr Note following #2, consider definition for "user interface > accessibility"? JR: I think this should be fine (remember this is informative text) > Also definitions for "accessible authoring practices" JR: OK, defined term already > and "functions related to accessibility"? JR: Maybe change to "features" > "Success Criteria" section before "Levels of Conformance": > insert "middle" after "AA"? JR: OK > RElationship to the WCAG: > Do we want to still list "WCAG1.0" after "e.g.", since WCAG2.0 is now a > rec? JR: Let's change to 2.0 > Do we want to provide a link to WCAG2.0 when used first? JR: OK > Web content technologies? > accessible authoring practices? > WCAG-conforming? JR: Suggest: "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by WCAG-conforming examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool" be REWORDED to say "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims are supported by examples of Web content produced by the authoring tool that conform to WCAG" > Web content? JR: OK, already defined. > ATAG2.0 Guidelines -> Part A -> Applicability NOtes: > "chrome"? JR: I think the e.g. clarifies this > insert "Web" before "content" (two places in paragraph)? JR: OK > user interface (or do we want to add "authoring tool" before "user > interface"? JR: OK. Let's insert "authoring tool" > accessibility JR: Prefer not to, see above > authoring tool user interface JR: OK, defined already > Guideline A.1.2 - > A.1.2.1 > > standards > platform conventions JR: Let's define: "standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility" > Guideline 2.1 (should be A.2.1?): JR: Yes there is a numbering error. > assistive technologies JR: OK, defined already > 2.1.2: > > user interface components JR: OK, defined already > name, JR: OK, defined already > role, JR: OK, defined already > state, value, description? JR: OK. To get us started..from WAI ARIA (http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/): State A state is a dynamic property expressing characteristics of an object that may change in response to user action or automated processes. States do not affect the essential nature of the object, but represent data associated with the object or user interaction possibilities. Value A literal that concretizes the information expressed by a state or property, or text content. Property Attributes that are essential to the nature of a given object. As such, they are less likely to change than states; a change of a property may significantly impact the meaning or presentation of an object. Properties mainly provide limitations on objects from the most general case implied by roles without properties applied. Description ??? > 2.1.3: > spell out "DOM" JR: OK > user agent JR: OK, defined already > 2.1.4: > available programmatically JR: Maybe if we added (e.g., via an API)? > (value of a?) piece of content JR: Rewording suggestion: "piece of content" => "content" > degree of write access? JR: Rewording suggestion: "degree of write access" => "ability" > 2.1.5: > foreground color > background color JR: I think this is clear to the audience of the doc. > Applicability Note: > user agent interface JR: Should say "authoring tool user interface" - term is defined > Principle A-2: > Editing views? JR: Term defined within "view" > Perceivable? JR: WCAG doesn't define. > A.2.1.1: > Alternative equivalents (or equivalent alternatives - need to decide > which one and stick to it for consistency) JR: Equivalent alternatives > Guideline A.2.2: > Programmatic access JR: Rewording suggestion: "Provide programatic access to all information in the editing view"=>"Provide programatic access to information in the editing view" (removed "all") JR: "Programmatic access" already used above > A.2.2.1: > functional purpose JR: Suggest rewording: "...the functional purpose for the modification..." => "...a description of the purpose of the modification..." > A.2.2.2: > WYSIWYG (need to spell out?) JR: Or make it a defined term: WYSIWYG This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG user interface displays content being edited in a way that is very similar to how it will appear to end users. > A.2.3.1: > > display characteristics/preferences JR: Maybe we instead use "Display settings" which is a defined term. Preferences is common usage. > Principle A-3: > perceivable? JR: Prefer not to, see above. > Guideline A-3-1: > > authoring features? JR: Suggest: "Enhance keyboard access to authoring features" => "Enhance keyboard access" > keyboard access? > > A.3.1.1: > > key-plus-modifier-key JR: I think this is OK. > operating environment > > A.3.1.2: > > keyboard trap JR: OK...here's a start: keyboard trap A user interface phenomenon in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to, but not from, a control or group of controls. JR: PLUS "Importing Content Keyboard Trap" => "Avoiding Content Keyboard Trap" > keyboard focus JR: I think this is a common term for the audience. > standard sequential keyboard command > direct keyboard command JR: I came up with these terms for UAAG (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2008AprJun/0004.html) > focusable element JR: Suggest: "will always move keyboard focus to a subsequent focusable element" => "will always move keyboard focus to the next element able to receive focus" > Applicability NOtes: > keyboard navigation functions JR: Suggest: "functions"=>"features" more commonly used perhaps. > Guideline A.3.2: > time-dependent-interaction JR: Suggest wording closer to WCAG2: "Enable time-independent interaction" => "Minimize time limits on authors." > A.3.2.1: > server JR: I think this is a common term for the audience. > A.3.2.2: > simple action JR: In A.3.2.2 I think the e.g. is sufficient. I suggest we remove the use of "simple action" in A.3.4. > A.3.2.3: > moving target > selectable component JR: Remove both terms with suggested rewording: "If the user interface includes any moving targets for authors' actions (e.g.,a selectable component of an animation), then authors can stop that movement." => "If a user interface component that accepts mouse input is capable of movement (e.g., animated vector graphic), provide authors with the option to stop the movement." > GUideline A.3.3 > flashing JR: Defined term. > seizures JR: I think this is a common term. > A.3.3.1: > static view > time-based content > fixed state JR: Suggested rewording (time: "If an editing view renders content (e.g., WYSIWYG) then the author has the global option of a static view in which time-based content appears in a fixed state." => "If an editing view renders time-based content (e.g., animations), provide authors with the global option of rendering only the initial state of time-based content." > Guideline A.3.4: > navigation > editing > content structure JR: Rewording of rationale suggestion: "People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify navigation and editing" => "People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify the tasks of navigating and editing the content" > A.3.4.1: > element, contents, sub-elements (is distinction always clear?) JR: ASIDE: This is making me think we need an "Understanding ATAG 2.0" document since I don't think the Glossary can necessarily clarify absolutely everything. > A.3.4.2: > structured element set JR: Defined term. > editing focus JR: I think this would be clear to the audience. > identical element JR: REWORDING suggestion: "next identical element" => "next instance of the same element". > A.3.4.3: > heading/level? JR: REWORDING suggestion: "to the heading" before "to the next heading element". > A.3.4.4: > Doesn't above, below, preceding, etc. depend on navigation order? JR: We could clarify "in the hierarchy". > A.3.5.1: > text search JR: REWORDING suggestion: "A function is provided that allows text search of the content..." => "Provide the ability to search for text in the content.." > insert "Web" before "content"? JR: OK > textual information/text content JR: REWORDING suggestion: "can search any textual information..." => "can search within any content that is text..." > editable? JR: REWORDING suggestion: "that is editable using the authoring tool" => "that the authoring tool can modify". > backwards, forwards, case sensistive/insensitive may be unclear? JR: I think they are ok. > What does it mean to "perform search results"? JR: REWORDING: "view search results" > instruction level? JR: Term should be "source content" defined in glossary. > markup tags (difference from elements?) JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "search for markup tags" => "search for elements by name". > Guideline A.3.6: > preference settings JR: Agee def'n might help. > A.3.6.1: > keyboard operability settings JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "keyboard operability settings" => "keyboard preference settings" > A.3.6.2: > multiple sets of preferences? JR: I think this is clear. > accessibility option-setting "wizard" JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "...an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A" => "..."wizard"-type feature that helps them to configure any accessibility-related preference settings related to Part A" > A.3.7.1: > help system JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "If a preview is provided, then it is possible to return from the preview using a simple action which is documented in the help system." => If a preview is provided, provide a documented keyboard accessible mechanism for returning to an editing view from the preview. > Guideline A.4.1: > users (different from authors?) JR: Should be "authors" > A.4.1.1: > irreversible JR: Reversible is defined. I guess we could mention "irreversible" within that term's definition. reversible actions Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. *Irreversible actions* are actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with. > A.4.1.2: > setting modification JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "setting modification is irreversible" => "actions are irreversible" > A.4.1.3: > (Web) content "undo" JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "content 'undo'" => "undo action(s)" > A.4.1.4: > reversible authoring function JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Authors can reverse at least 5 consecutive reversible authoring actions." => "Allow authors undo at least 5 consecutive reversible actions." > Applicability Notes: > "undo" function (or undo function - need to make consistent) JR: I suggest: "undo" function > undo history JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "to reset the undo history." => "to make all previous actions irreversible." > > Guideline A.4.2: > user interface JR: Defined...usually our style (following WCAG2) is not to put definition links into the guidelines. > accessibility feature JR: Guidelines are not normative. I think the SC's do a good job explaining what is required. > A.4.2.1: > documented? JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Document all features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.)." JR: LINK to "documentation". > A.4.2.2: > accessibility feature and JR: Test of SC clarifies this. > tutorial? JR: Defined term already. > Part B: > Applicability NOtes: > #1-authoring session? JR: Defined term already. > #2-accessibility problems JR: Defined term already. > third-party feed JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "an RSS feed from a third-party" > automatically-generated JR: Defined term already. "Content Generation" > CMS (spell out?) JR: OK > #3-accessible authoring practices JR: Defined term already. > technologies JR: Defined term already. > markup authoring tool JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "HTML authoring tool" > URIs (spell out?) JR: Common term for audience > alternative text JR: "text alternative" is defined. > #4 - authoring systems JR: I think the text explains the handle ok. > software tools JR" REWORD SUGGESTION: "As per the definition of authoring tool, several applications can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B. (e.g. an authoring tool could make use of a third-party plug-in performing accessibility *checking* and *repair*)." > 3rd party (vs. third-party previous - consistency?) software accessibility JR: Suggest "third-party" everywhere > checking and repair program JR: See REWORD > Guideline B.1.1: > Web content technology add "Web" before "content" JR: OK > B.1.1.1: > automatically selected JR: I think this ok. > "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?) JR: A technology doesn't conform to WCAG, content made from the technology does. > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? JR: Let's provide link to "http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/" JR: Also put note with link to our informative intro text explaining the ATAG-WCAG relationship > B.1.1.2 (and 1.1.4 and 1.1.6): > Web content technology options JR: REWORDING SUGGESTION: "Web content technology options"=>"options for which Web content technology to use" > prominence JR: Defined term. > accessible technology > task JR: We could safely drop this part I think " and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task." > B.1.1.5: > "technology" instead of "technologies" JR: OK > "can" conform (say "must conform" or just "conform"?) JR: See above. > B.1.2.1: > target (or target technology?) JR: REWORD: "Technology of the output" > transformation JR: Defined term. > conversion JR: Defined term. > recognized accessibility information JR: "Recognized" is a Defined term. JR: "accessibility information" is a Defined term. > B.1.2.2: > add "Web" before "content"? JR: OK > preserved JR: I think this is ok > resulting conten JR: Outputted content > B.1.2.3: > automatic deletion JR: REWORD: "authors have the option to turn off the automatic deletion" => "provide authors with the option of preventing automatic deletion by the authoring tool" > GUideline B.1.3: > automatically-generated content JR: Defined term. > (in see also): > template JR: Defined term. > pre-authored content JR: Agreed. Pre-authored content: Web content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) > B.1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3: > "Web" content or "content"? JR: The Glossary term is actually: "content (Web) - or shortened to content" Is this ok? > (in applicability notes)" > automated behavior JR: Replace with defined "automatic content generation" > actions JR: I think this is ok > generation JR: Defined term "content generation" > Principle B.2: > (global change - add "Web" before "content"?) JR: See above > Notes: > authoring tool processes > what is example of non-human author? why do we add "human" here but > nowhere else? > authoring "choices" JR: I think we can remove this applicability note. B.1 and B.3 don't have them. > Guideline B.2.1: > accessible "Web" content JR: Defined term > (in see also): > repair features JR: "Repair" is defined term. > author guidance JR: I think this is ok > (typo - "Guidelin" should be "Guideline") > B.2.1.1 (2.1.3 and 2.1.5 - misnumbered - should be B.2.1.2 and B.2.1.3): JR: OK > prompt(ed) JR: "Prompt" is defined term. > information (difference from "Web" content) JR: Add "(e.g., file location)" > Guideline B.2.2: > accessibility problems JR: Defined term > B.2.2.1: > individual check JR: REWORD "check"=>"test" - already used in defn of checking JR: REWORD: "For each WCAG Level A Success Criterion that the authoring tool has the functionality to meet, provide at least one test of the criterion (e.g., an authoring tool must check the contrast of images only if it may be used to edit images)." > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? JR: See above. > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) JR: Agreed. See above. > B.2.2.2: > checking JR: Defined term > workflow JR: Defined term > (available to whom? the author? user of the authoring tool?) JR: add "to authors" > B.2.2.3: > check JR: See above > author judgement JR: I think this is ok > potential accessibility problem JR: I think this is ok from the context > relevant "Web" content > (this text is confusing to me - "identified" used twice in different > contexts?) JR: SUGGESTED REWORD (combining B.2.2.3 and B.2.2.4): Assist Author Decision-Making: "If a test requires authors to decide whether an accessibility problem actually exists (i.e., in manual and semi-automated checking): - provide authors with information about the location of the potential problem (e.g., line number, highlighted rendering, text instructions, etc.). - provide authors with instructions to help them decide if a problem actually exists. > B.2.2.4: > decide (What?) JR: See above > B.2.2.5: > individual check > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) JR: See above > B.2.2.6: > > accessibility problems JR: See above > authoring session JR: See above > B.2.2.7: > > (repair) assistance > checking JR: See above > option? JR: Defined term "options" > B.2.2.8: > accessibility status JR: REWORD: "accessibility status" => "the existence of Web content accessibility problems" > metadata JR: I think this is ok. > resource discovery JR: Suggest removing: " to facilitate resource discovery by end users" > end users (same as authors?) JR: No - "defined term" > option? JR: See above > "Web" content? JR: See above > B.2.2.9: > individual check JR: See above > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > (tool does not modify a WCAG success criterion - awkward wording?) JR: See above > Applicability Notes: > authoring experience JR: REWORD: "user experience of authors" > authoring process JR: REWORD: "This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool user interface limits author options such that it is not possible for them to introduce accessibility problems (e.g., some content management systems)." > accessibility problems JR: See above. > Guideline B.2.3: > accessibility problems JR: See above. > B.2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3: > identifiable > repair assistance JR: Link to "Repair" > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? JR: See above. > Applicability Notes: > authoring experience > authoring process > accessibility problems JR: See above. > Guideline B.2.4.: > (doesn't "manage" include both "edit" and "reuse" as subcategories?) JR: REWORD: Assist authors with managing equivalent alternatives for non-text objects > equivalent alternative JR: Defined term. > non-text object JR: Defined term. > B.2.4.2: > for a type of?? Is this needed? JR: REWORD: If the authoring tool is capable of adding a type of equivalent alternatives (e.g., text alternatives, captions), then authors can edit the equivalent alternatives. > B.2.4.3: > > equivalent alternative JR: Defined term. > object database > null equivalent alternative > pure decoration > (CART - spell out acronym?) > automatic analysis? > > B.2.4.4: > > author-assigned > plain text > (stores) directly vs. > (stores) as (URIs - spell out acronym) > > (Note: what is an "unreliable source"?) > JR: B.2.4 section is in a bit of flux. > Guideline B.2.5: > accessible template JR: REWORD: "If the authoring tool provides templates options for a task, then at least one option template options meets WCAG Level A when used." > pre-authored (Web?) content JR: See above. > B.2.5.1: > automatically (selects) JR: I think this ok. > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? JR: See above > B.2.5.2: > accessible template options > template uses JR: See above > B.2.5.3: > > accessibility status JR: REWORD: (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the WCAG level at which the templates meet WCAG when used. > accessible template options JR: See above. > selection mechanism JR: I think this is ok. > B.2.5.1: > automatically (selects) JR: See above > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? JR: See above > B.2.5.5: > new (template) REWORD: "their own" > B.2.5.6: > repository of templates JR: I think this is ok. > recorded (accessibility status) JR: REWORD: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects include the WCAG level at which they conform." > B.2.5.7: > selection mechanism > pre-authored content > > B.2.5.8: > > repository of pre-authored content > (Web?) content objects > recorded (accessibility status) > > B.2.5.9: > automatically (selects) JR: I think this is ok. > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > used? JR: See above. > (Note is confusing to me - acessibility of template vs. accessibility of > (Web) content produced? - what is "final" technology?) JR: I think the group needs to revisit this whole Guideline to be sure what is being said. > Principle B.3: > > accessibility solution JR: Non-normative usage > promoted JR: Non-normative usage > integrated JR: Non-normative usage > Guideline B.3.1: > > accessible authoring actions JR: Already changed to "authoring task" I think that's more clear > prominence JR: defined term > B.3.1.1 terms are underlined whereas B.3.1.2 similar terms are not? JR: Let's underline everywhere using the less obtrusive WCAG defined term style > Guideline B.3.2: > seqential authoring processes JR: Non-normative usage > accessible authoring practices JR: Defined term > B.3.2.1: > "Functionality" instead of "function"? JR: Or "features" perhaps. > relevant to (how measured?) JR: "required for Level A WCAG conformance" > "complete" the "function" - awkward? JR: REWORD: "complete us of the feature" > B.3.2.2: > sequence JR: I think this is ok. > relevant to (how measured?) JR: "required for Level A WCAG conformance" > "complete" the "sequence" JR: I think this is ok. > Guideline B.3.3: > features JR: I think this is ok. > accessible (Web) content JR: Defined term > available to whom? author? JR: Add "to authors" > B.3.3.1: > active JR: REWORD: "Turned 'on'" > B.3.3.2: > deactivate/reactivate a feature? JR: REWORD: "Turn 'off'/turn 'on'" > B.3.3.1 terms are underlined whereas similar terms in B.3.3.2 are not.. JR: See above. > B.3.3.3: > (Web) content accessibility problem JR: Defined term. > B.3.3.4: > comparable features JR: I think this is ok. > Guideline B.3.4: > features JR: I think this is ok. > documented JR: Link to "documentation" > B.3.4.1: > instructions JR: I think this is ok. > B.3.4.2: > accessible authoring process REWORD: "Provide a tutorial, specific to the authoring tool, that demonstrates how content conforming to WCAG can be produced. > Guideline B.3.5: > authoring practices JR: Defined term. > documentation JR: Defined term. > accessible JR: Defined term. "accessible authoring practices" > B.3.5.1: > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? JR: See above. > (WYSIWYG - spell out acronym) JR: Addressed in y glossary proposal. > B.3.5.2: > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? JR: See above. > Conformance: > version > published > document > for "WCAG" say "WCAG2.0" or provide link to latest WCAG spec? > URI - spell out acronym JR: Common term for target audience I think. > (Note - for the last bullet, do we still want people to point to ATAG1.0?) JR: ??? > what does "available" mean in this context? JR: Remove: "that is available" > component JR: Defined term > Web-based user interface functionality JR: Defined term > non-user agent platform JR: I think I recall this being changed. Cheers, Jan -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Lead Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information (i-school) 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, 9 January 2009 22:00:04 UTC