Re: UAWG minutes 6 Nov 2008

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification on the interface and sorry for the confusion 
regarding my no commet.  It's rough to be coherent in such a tight beam.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Allan" <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@comcast.net>; <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: UAWG minutes 6 Nov 2008


Hi David,
Thanks for your comments. Responses inline below.

> <AllanJ> Alan proposal: 2.1.2 For each user interface component, including
> the user interface itself and rendered content, make available its name,
> role, state, value, and description via an accessibility platform
> architecture.
>
> JR: Looks good
>
> <AllanJ> +1
>
> Alan C: Should say 'and every' as opposed to each?
>
> JR: Likes the way it is
>
> <scribe> ACTION: jeanne Write back to David - re new wording [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-ua-minutes.html#action01]


DavidP:  I like every here too and we used to have something about a 
documented accessibility api and such.  I gather that we are talking about 
components of the user interface with content in them and not the user 
interface and the content it is rendering.  If the latter, it needs to be 
separate.

Jim: we intend it to mean - Each user interface component in the user agent 
user interface and every user interface component in the rendered content 
(for example controls in a web application or form) must have its name, 
role, state, value, and description made available via an accessibility 
platform architecture.  We switched from API to accessibility platform 
architecture because not all platforms have an API and we are trying to be 
as technology agnostic as possible and still be coherent.

> Judy: can we ask David Poehlman to clarify his comment 'cannot accept,
> advise or reject.'
>
> <AllanJ> ACTION: jim to write david concerning clarify comment on 2.1.4 -
> need more expansion [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/11/06-ua-minutes.html#action07]

DavidP: It just meant I had no comment but didn't want to leave it blank and 
to explain a bit of why.

Jim: 'no comment' would be fine.

Jim

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 23:15:46 UTC