- From: Greg Pisocky <gpisocky@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:06:04 -0800
- To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
- CC: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Message-ID: <64BAFF76F7529141BBCFE3457F1D81AD013CAB425E2C@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
(1) New proposal on replacing term: freehand drawing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0063.html _X Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (2) Removing term "option" from glossary http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35520/20100210/results#xq17 _ Remove "option" _ Keep "option" X Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (3) Adding "Encouraged" the note on checking (Tim's action) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0068.html X Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (4) Updated intent text for B.2.1.3 Other Technologies http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0067.html _ Accept the proposal X Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Insert "content" ...I agree with the proposal, However, in cases where the inserted web content technology can introduce extensive, inaccessible content, providing functionality support for linking to conforming alternate versions might be appropriate. ====================== (5) Updated intent text for B.2.2.9 Metadata for Repair http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0069.html X Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (6) Various marked edits in Appendix A: Gathering Accessibility Information from Authors: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2010/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20100222/#prompting-types _ Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) X The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Are these to be considered normative techniques or just examples of the sorts of things one can do. Provide validation for structure for instance strikes me as specifying an admittedly useful (but optional) feature to a tool that assuming it generates structure would be generating a valid structure. ====================== (7) Approving responses to IBM comments on the last public WD: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0070.html X Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (8) E.g. added to B.1.2.2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: Point 1 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html X Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) _ The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (9) E.g. added to B.1.2.2 Examples Point 4 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html _ Accept the proposal _ Recommend changes (add comments) X The proposal needs more discussion (add comments) _ Disagree with the proposal _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group Now I am having problems with 8 and 9 - what kind of tool on this good earth Would destroy an original thus providing the need to archive it in some separate location? Perhaps this isn't the best of examples and as such has us trying to construct some Bizarre scenarios. ====================== (10) B.2.2.8 Metadata for Discovery: AA or AAA? Point 2 in _ AA X AAA _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== (11) Idea of noting keyboard optimizations are good for power users Point 3 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2010JanMar/0071.html X Don't add note (on power users) _ Add note (on power users) _ Neutral - will accept the consensus of the group ====================== Cheers, Jan -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jan.richards@utoronto.ca<mailto:jan.richards@utoronto.ca?Subject=Re%3A%20AUWG%20survey%20(due%20before%20the%20call%20on%20Mar.%201)%3A&In-Reply-To=%253C4B85612E.7070003%40utoronto.ca%253E&References=%253C4B85612E.7070003%40utoronto.ca%253E> | 416-946-7060 Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information | University of Toronto Greg Pisocky Accessibility Specialist Adobe Systems Incorporated 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000 McLean, VA 22102 USA 703.883.2810p, 703.883.2850f 703.678.3542c gpisocky@adobe.com<mailto:gpisocky@adobe.com> www.adobe.com/accessibility<http://www.adobe.com/accessibility> Concall Info * 69900 (from any Adobe office worldwide) * 408-536-9900 (from any non-Adobe location in the 408 area code) * 1-877-220-5439 (North America Toll Free) * 1-800-642-196 (Australia Toll Free) * 44-20-8606-1105 or ext. 81105 (London)
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 20:06:43 UTC