Re: Amaya conformance to UAGL

In general the guidelines seem to work well for the design of Amaya. I have
included individual commetns through the text on how each checkpoint seemed
when trying to determine if it was satisifed - there were some that didn't
seem to work for me. But then I spent about three quarters of an hour on it -
if a developer expected to do a full check in that tmie I would imagine they
were not giving the task their fullest attention, or they had already done
everything.

Anyway, I thought I would refrain from summarising my comments until a few
more people had done the exercise, in order to let them do it from as clean
a slate as possible.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  Do the guidelines seem to apply to the design of Amaya?
  Were there checkpoints that were ambigious or difficult to interpret for
  Amaya features?
  Jon
  
  
  At 07:50 PM 8/23/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >I have done an initial assessment of the conformance of Amaya to the UAGL,
  >using the checklist. I am not an Amaya developer, and do not know much about
  >the code. I have been using Amaya pretty frequently for the last six months,
  >in part because as well as a browser it is an authoring tool - I used it to
  >edit the checklist table.
  >
  >Amaya is an open source project, primarily worked on by a few members of the
  >W3C team as a testbed for implementing new spcifications such as MathML and
  >XHTML (and accesibility guidelines).It is in more or less permanent alpha,
  >although releases of stable versions are made from time to time. This review
  >is based on the amaya 2.1 release of late June.
  >
  >I have been going through the documentation to ensure that it complies to
  >WCAG, and documents how to use accessibility features, and the next release
  >should reflect that (the changes are committed to the latest CVS bleeding
  >edge version as I make them).
  >
  >Anyway, the following is a lynx print of my comments - I will also make the
  >HTML available.
  >
[extensive comments snipped]

Received on Wednesday, 25 August 1999 10:37:25 UTC