MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-accessibility] Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 CommitteeDraft 1
Hi Michael, all,
In our SC meeting (just concluded), we unanimously agreed that we do not
want to delay the ODF 1.1 process, and do not think we can have the text
for everything we want to have for a set of Accessibility Guidelines
ready in time to keep the process on schedule. We furthermore do like
the text in the existing Appendix E - most especially E1 and E3, which
we think are very important.
What we would like to is make a slight modification to the existing
Appendix E, to add a note saying essentially: "Please see the
additional, detailed Accessibility Guidelines at
http://oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office/guidelines. That more
comprehensive document will be the up-to-date set of recommendations for
what all ODF applications should to in order to fully support
accessibility."
We would then put onto that page a link to the Accessibility Guidelines
document we are now working on.
If I'm not mistaken, there has also been discussion within the TC of
other Guidelines documents. We might perhaps have a page at a URL like
the one suggested above which contains a suite of guidelines.
I plan to join the TC call next week Monday, to be available to discuss
this further.
Regards,
Peter
> Mary, Peter, all,
>
> first of all: independent of what the A11y SC or the TC considers to
> be the best solution, we need a decission very soon. Our current
> schedule for OpenDocument 1.1 is set up in a way that we may have an
> OASIS Standard voting in November provided of cause that the public
> review is sucessfull. If we want to keep this option, then the public
> review must start on the 2nd of August latest, allthough this already
> would lead to an extremly tight schedule.
>
> Maybe the A11y SC can discuss and agree on one of the options today,
> so that the TC can take the appropriate actions in its TC meeting on
> Monday.
>
> Regarding the appendix and the options itself:
>
> The current Appendix E includes exactly those accessibility guidelines
> that were already included in the proposals contained in the
> accessibility report. More precisely, for some of the extensions
> suggested by the a11y report, the text proposals that are contained in
> the report were splitted: The text that describes the semantic of new
> elements and attributes was added to the normative part of the
> specification, while guidelines regarding their implementation and use
> were move to the appendix.
>
> We now have (at least) the following options:
>
> a) We keep ODF 1.1 as it is, and the SC works on a companion document
> that the TC approves independently.
> b) We replace the content of Appendix E with a reference to the TC or
> SC web pages (since the companion document is not existing so far,
> referencing it seems not be an option to me).
> c) We delay ODF 1.1 and replace Appendix E with the accessibility
> guidelines that are a work in progress in the A11y SC. This delay
> could be compensated by setting an OASIS standard vote for
> OpenDocument 1.1 aside for this year, which saves about one and a half
> months. Since accessibility is the main reason for OpenDocument v1.1,
> it would be interesting to know the A11y SC's opinion on this.
>
> Whatever the SC thinks is the best solution works for me, and I
> believe for the TC as well.
>
> I personally prefer option a) if the Accessibility SC would like to
> have at least those recommendation included in the specification that
> were contained in the A11y report, and option b), if this is not the
> case.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Mary McRae wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I personally like Peter's suggestion that the accessibility
>> guidelines be
>> treated as a separate document that Appendix E would reference;
>> particularly
>> since it's non-normative. One concern with the current approach would
>> be that
>> unless additional public reviews are intended prior to voting v1.1 as a
>> Committee Specification and optionally submitting for OASIS Standard
>> vote, no
>> new material can be added, meaning that the additional work under
>> development
>> would have to wait for the next release of the main specification.
>> I'm only
>> jumping in here because I have already received a request from
>> Michael to
>> announce the public review; if you want to change the document to
>> accomodate
>> this suggestion now would be time ... Michael can withdraw his
>> request, Appendix
>> E can be modified, and then we can go forward with the 60-day review.
>>
>> Please note that this is just my personal opinion and should not be
>> construed
>> to carry any more weight because of my position as TC Administrator
>> and/or Staff
>> Contact.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>>>