W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: First draft of "Selecting Software for Developing Accessible Web Sites"

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 01:39:04 -0500 (EST)
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
cc: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112140133400.23512-100000@tux.w3.org>
There is not much point saying this document must not be referenced or quoted
in any form - that is required to make useful comment on it. I suggest
something like "should not be referenced or quoted except as work in
progress. Readers should note that this document is likely to be updated and
changed." There are many examples of this in W3C Working Drafts.

It would be useful if there was a dated version identifier as well as a
latest version URI - particularly in terms of review comments. (This review
was made on the version provided at 0630UTC 14122001)

The Site Map link should probably say "WAI site map" - at first I actually
expected either a W3C map or one for this suite.

I like the suite links

  "As of the last revision of this document, no single authoring tool meets
  all requirements of Level A Conformance to ATAG 1.0;"

should be "no tool is known to conform to..."

  "The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG)
  periodically reviews authoring tools to test their conformance with ATAG

The working group does not do the reviews, it just collects them. Some are
done by members of the group, some are done by other people.

Many of the reviews are up to date, although they are not complete reviews -
normally covering some sections of ATAG only.

 * When selecting new or replacement software:
   + Which applications are more conformant with ATAG 1.0?
   + Which applications have a more accessible user interface?

Accessibility of the User interface is part of conformance to ATAG 1.0, so
the question is redundant.

Another question to ask is

  which tool meets the particular accessibility requirements of current
  staff, which tools will meet possible new needs?



  Please take a look and let's discuss it at our meeting today:
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 01:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:32 UTC