Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 Committee Draft 1

[Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>]

Rob,

The accessibility SC agreed to produce a separate guidelines document. The group would not be able to meet the August 2 deadline and deliver an accessibility appendix of significant value to implementors. Having a separate document allows us to be more comprehensive.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus

Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus

07/20/2006 10:41 PM

To	office@lists.oasis-open.org, office-accessibility@lists.oasis-open
cc
Subject	Re: [office] OpenDocument v1.1 Committee Draft 1

I took another look at the Appendix E, and I'm starting to have some doubts.

If the intent is to expand on this, and make a more comprehensive statement on accessibility guidelines, then having it be a separate document would give us more flexibility. It could be revised and reviewed on an independent cycle. Since it would likely not contain normative standards content (same as Appendix E), it may have more avenues for release, such as a committee document, or something promoted on XML.org or via the Adoption TC.

Having it be separate also keeps the size of the ODC standard a little shorter, so there is less work for downstream reviewers and translators.

So, I love the content, but I'd recommend keeping it in a separate document.

Regards,

-Rob


Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM wrote on 07/20/2006 05:32:14 AM:


> 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.
>