Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007

Thanks a lot Greg.

If I get one more response I'll be able to process this poll, put out a 
new Editor's draft and send out Poll#3 tomorrow.

Cheers,
Jan




Greg Pisocky wrote:
> Appreciate all your work with this Jan. Here are my votes.
> 
> Proposal 1:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
> changes)
> 
> Grammar: Change second sentence of first paragraph from: "They are
> similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is
> written as a statement that will be either true or false when specific a
> Authoring Tool is tested against it." to "They are similar to the
> "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a
> statement that will be either true or false when a specific Authoring
> Tool is tested against it."
> 
> Proposal 2: A: Accept the Proposal
> 
> Proposal 3: C: Do not accept the proposal. I would like to see a
> requirement for claimants to cite the authority for the conventions
> being followed. "My application adheres to Windows UI conventions
> version xxx, or Mac OS X, or X Windows, etc. Also a change in phrasing:
>>From "Also, people are often familiar with accessibility conventions
> employed by other applications built for a platform will find the
> application easier to use" to "Also, people who are familiar with the
> accessibility conventions employed by a specific platform while find
> applications that adhere to those conventions easier to use."
> 
> Proposal 4:    B: Accept the proposal with the changes (then specify
> changes). Add words to the effect: "Except for those Benchmark documents
> published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG. Or published
> by those entities. Or perhaps this: "Neither W3C, WAI, nor WAI-AUWG take
> any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance
> claim or Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document that has not been
> published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG." I suspect
> the W3C will be publishing conformance claims and benchmarks for W3C
> technologies and they should be held responsible for those just as
> entities responsible for non-W3C technologies will be liable for any
> claims made in the documents they publish.
> 
> Proposal 5: A: Accept the proposal
> 
> Proposal 6: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Change "1. manual
> checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the
> case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by
> the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual test
> procedure;" to "1. manual checking: where the tests are carried out by
> authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by
> instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where
> authors must intervene to carry out the actual test procedure; 
> 
> Proposal 7: A: Accept the proposal
> 
> Proposal 8: B: Accept the proposal with changes. Add "dynamically
> generated content" to the list of examples. For applications where
> scripting or code rather than a template creates the output that must be
> accessible.
> 
> Greg Pisocky | Adobe Systems | 703-883-2810 p | 703-678-3541 m
> gpisocky@adobe.com 
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards
>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:01 PM
>> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
>> Cc: 'WAI-AUWG List'
>> Subject: Re: AUWG Poll #2: 18 September 2007
>>
>>
>> Just a reminder that I'm awaiting two more responses before 
>> processing AUWG Poll #2.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007JulSep/0055.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jan
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 20:52:42 UTC