- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:09:32 -0400
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>,"EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
At 08:35 PM 4/16/2009 -0500, Shawn Henry wrote: >Thank you for the review and comments, Judy. > >EOWG & Judy, > >Because there are other things that need to be updated, I edited it to: >"The draft document will soon be updated to reflect current best >practice; for example, the references will be updated to WCAG 2.0 >instead of WCAG 1.0." >Let me know if you have any concerns with that. It's fine. >>I would also lean towards giving the time-frame as "within 2009" >>instead of "by 2010." > >Until that seems feasible, I would rather not put the earlier time. >It's better to beat the date than to miss it in this case. At any >time where it seems like we might get it done in 2009, we can change the date. >Thanks, >~Shawn > >Judy Brewer wrote: >>Hi Shawn & EOWG: >>In general, the Intro looks great, and thanks for the work on this. >>Specifically, I think that it would benefit from directly saying, >>somewhere in the intro, that the examples are currently synched w/ >>WCAG 1.0 but that it will be updated to reflect WCAG 2.0. >>Right now in the intro it says: >>>The draft document will soon be updated to reflect current best >>>practice. We expect it to be completed and published by 2010, as >>>part of the WAI-AGE Project. >>Perhaps this further clarification could be built briefly into that >>paragraph (though the wording "current best practice" looks >>carefully chosen so perhaps there is background that I am missing >>on this) by saying: >> >>>The draft document will soon be updated to reflect current best >>>practice (by using examples from WCAG 2.0 instead of WCAG 1.0). We >>>expect it to be completed and published by 2010, as part of the >>>WAI-AGE Project. >>Adding the clarification at this point in the document would not >>only explain what is currently out of synch, but also reinforce >>that WCAG 2.0 is the current best practice, which I think it's >>useful to find additional ways to reinforce. >>I would also lean towards giving the time-frame as "within 2009" >>instead of "by 2010." >>Regards, >>- Judy >>At 09:20 PM 4/6/2009 -0500, Shawn Henry wrote: >>>EOWG, >>> >>>Introduction to "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" has >>>been updated based on feedback from the EOWG mailing list [1] and >>>last week's EOWG discussion [2], and is ready for EOWG approval at: >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/people-use-web >>> >>>Additionally, EOWG identified the need to add a status note on the >>>main document. That is drafted at: >>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/status#status >>> >>>Please send any additional comments *by Tuesday 14 April*. Please >>>indicate if your comments are high priority for addressing before >>>the information is officially published, or if your comments are >>>optional for consideration. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>~Shawn >>> >>> >>>[1] >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0000.html >>> through http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2009AprJun/0007.html >>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/03-eo-minutes#item01 >>> >>> >>>----- >>>Shawn Lawton Henry >>>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) >>>e-mail: shawn@w3.org >>>phone: +1.617.395.7664 >>>about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 05:26:30 UTC