- From: Jeanne Spellman <jeanne@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:02:53 -0400
- To: Eric Hansen <ehansen@ets.org>, UAWG <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Kim and I met today to go through Eric's comments, since they were mostly editorial. Thanks go to Eric for spotting inconsistencies. All changes are in the Editors Draft of 4 June and the LC Comments file. Some of the wording changes are highlighted in the Editor's draft with a style of proposed-text. We thought that EH13 should be discussed by the group. Kim and I did not recommend any changes because we did not want to add complexity to the process, but we recognize that providing more detail on defining what is not-applicable is still an issue in UAWG. Quick overview of what we did: Intro: EH01-4 are accepted editorial comments and are done EH05 "Users must be able to access" is editorial, but not accepted because UAAG style uses CAN instead of MUST BE ABLE or IS POSSIBLE or HAS THE OPTION Conformance: EH07: accepted and done EH08: accepted and done EH09: accepted and done EH10: Poor choice of platform? Answer: Correct, the success criteria do not apply. EH11: Are claimants able to exclude any and all of the rendered technologies? We did not want to require a minimum of one to allow a possibility of mobile apps to claim UAAG conformance even though they are not web content. [Does UAWG want to revisit this issue? I thought we had covered it when we last rewrote the conformance conditions. ] EH12: Is there any overlap between the list of features not supported in #7? I could see MATHML being excluded in both 7 & 8, in which case they should be listed in both 7 & 8. EH13. Declarations and not applicable: *** Put this on the agenda to discuss as a group. *** EH14 & 15: Extensions - accepted and done. Changed the term "extension" to "add-on" for the category, extension and plug-in for the subcategories. Updated the definition. -- _______________________________ Jeanne Spellman W3C Web Accessibility Initiative jeanne@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 18:02:43 UTC