Re: Classification of AT in ATAG2

Matt May wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2003, at 6:12 PM, Geoff Deering wrote:
>
>> Someone on that list asked me to take a look at ATAG2, so I did, but 
>> have not had time to address the issues I found until now.  I did 
>> have a discussion off list with 2 W3C people related to these areas, 
>> but it seems that the issues I raised did not register as major 
>> concerns to them.
>
>
> Not a major concern? I'm composing this message on a flight home from 
> the XML 2003 conference where I presented to vendors of content 
> management systems on making their tools more accessible using ATAG. 
> Geoff, I really don't know how much more serious I can be about this.
>
> When we exchanged emails, I told you specifically that I take this 
> need seriously, and that we are working on ways to make ATAG more 
> usable to CMS developers. There is no change since we talked because 
> there has been no new draft since we talked. We are aiming for a new 
> draft in January.
>
If I have misinterpreted your support for these concerns I apologize.  
But it still appears to me we are not talking about quite the same 
issues, mine being that the main document should be completely 
unambiguous in this area.  To me, it is not.

> The paper I submitted:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Matt/Papers/XML2003.html
>
Good, but this does not really go deep into the real areas that concern me.

>> My point is, as it stands, ATAG2 does not clearly define each of 
>> these authoring environments and classify its guidelines 
>> accordingly.  ATAG2, as a document, bundles all these tools into the 
>> one basket, not defining which classification of tools should be 
>> compliant with which set of guidelines.
>
>
> This is because the draft is incomplete. It is an omission which is 
> being remedied in the process of moving things forward. We _will not_ 
> be allowed to proceed to Recommendation if we do not have this 
> functionality.
>   

I'm afraid I don't see it as incomplete, I see it as fundamentally 
flawed in its sweeping generalisations.  For it to have got to this 
stage and in this form indicates to me that the people working on this 
document just do not understand this concern.  Maybe I am mad and just 
an isolated case, and maybe there is evidence for that:-), but when I 
have raise this issue with other developers I feel they also share this 
despair at the quality of technical competence in addressing these issues.

>> What is needed is clear classifications of these AT in the document. 
>> For instance;
>>
>> Application software needs to comply with check point A,B,C, etc
>> Web Based form AT need comply with XYZ
>> Scripts need to comply with OPQ
>> whatever.
>
>
> This is already in ATAG 1, in the form of conformance icons. It will 
> be done in a clearer and more logical fashion for each tool type in 
> ATAG 2. I said this to you then, and I'm saying it to you again, in 
> public, now. It's not done yet. When we advance the document, it will 
> be. Your comments are noted, and reflect the consensus of the working 
> group.
>
Well, this is saying something different than Charles seems to indicate 
in his outline of all the checkpoints in his recent reply to me on this 
thread, where he "seems" to feel quite confident that the guidelines can 
be applied to all forms of ATs.

>> I was not allowed access to the ATAG list even though I eventually 
>> said I would agree to the charter (do the work necessary to address 
>> these issues), so I was given access to this list as the appropriate 
>> one and told to post it here.
>
>
> False. I specifically pointed you to the document for how to join the 
> Authoring Tools Working Group. Here it is again:
>
> On Oct 16, 2003, at 8:27 AM, Matt May wrote:
>
>> I noticed your xtech request, but didn't see one for AU.
>>
>> Do you wish to join the AUWG as a participant? If so, the procedure 
>> and requirements for doing so are at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/joining
>
>
> You may join the list by sending the necessary information. I never 
> disallowed you access to anything. For that matter, the 
> w3c-wai-au@w3.org list is open for public comment, and is noted in the 
> document as the place to send comments on the draft:
>
> "Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: 
> w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public archives). Please note that this document 
> may contain typographical errors. It was published as soon as possible 
> since review of the content itself is important, although noting 
> typographical errors is also helpful."
>
> -
> m



Note our correspondence about the ATAG list ***


Hi Geoff,

I noticed your xtech request, but didn't see one for AU.

Do you wish to join the AUWG as a participant? If so, the procedure and 
requirements for doing so are at:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/joining

Thanks,
m

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Geoff Deering wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> I set a request to subscribe last week but no response???
>
> Geoff


And *****

From - Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:06:57
To: Matt,  May
CC: Charles,  McCathieNevile
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:08:00 +1000
Subject: RE: ATAG (Issues)
From: Geoff,  Deering
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Hi Matt,

I'd actually be willing to own up and wear the charter, .....


So I agreed to it


And *****

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 08:15  PM, Geoff Deering wrote:

> I can either post my discussion on this issue of ATAG2 to the WAI GL, 
> or if
> you feel it is relevant and appropriate, you can add me to the ATAG list.


wai-xtech would be the appropriate list for this discussion. I can 
subscribe you to xtech if you like.

Received on Sunday, 14 December 2003 21:56:02 UTC