W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > June 2006

New suggested procedure.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:42:31 -0500
To: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c6935a$c8907d50$6401a8c0@NC6000BAK>
Hi all,


As we process comments - I would like to try the following procedure.   I
think it will work best as we dig through the remaining comments.



1.	As individuals create proposed resolutions for their team to


2.	When teams meet and review items they can find them easily.  They
either decide to post them out for survey to the working group (so they mark
them PENDING) or they decide to send them back for more work so they mark
them OPEN.


3.	Team leaders then create a questionnaire each week for all the
PENDING items (minus of course and pending items that were reviewed last
week but not yet covered at the weekly meeting -so they are already surveyed
but still sitting in pending).


4.	Once the full group as met and discussed an item it either
progresses to "CLOSED" or is sent back to the group for work which would
make it be OPEN (with instructions from the working group entered into the
working group notes field.


5.	Anything marked as CLOSED is passed on to Ben and the Chairs for
processing (Any edits are made to documents and comments sent to commenters
for feedback and acceptance.)



In summary 

OPEN - no proposal yet - or sent back for more work

PROPOSED -  an individual has proposed something

PENDING - a team has reviewed something and sent it up to the working group

CLOSED - the working group has decided.  

(there is CLOSED - Accept,  CLOSED - Partial Accept, and CLOSED- not accept.


Any action to be taken (e.g any edit to a document)  is always marked with



If you find something where there are a lot of comment on one topic - give
them all a short name with the same Keyword at the beginning (although it
COULD be anywhere in the short name - best if at front for sorting purposes
unless you have mulitiple) 

.  Since things are broken up across teams by SC mostly the KEYWORDS will be
specific to a working group.  But it would be good to keep a list of them so
we will be doing so.  Anyone can add one, but look first to see if there is
already one.  





-          KeyWords we already have  are:  (you do NOT have to put them in

o        [aggregated] - for comments on aggregated content

o        [audio description level] - for comments on AD and levels

o        [baseline]

o        [caption level]  - for comments on captions and levels

o        [complex terms] -  for programmatically determined, authored units

o        [cognitive]

o        [Level AAA]

o        [Link Text]

o        [multimedia]

o        [programmatically determined]

o        [simpler]   - for any that say (just make it simpler or some such

o        [user input]  - for issues dealing with user input content like
newgroups, maillists etc. 

o        [validity]

o        [web unit]



PS  don't create keywords if the SC # will do just fine.    Don't need
unnecessary keywords - just makes the list longer. 





Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  

The Player for my DSS sound file is at  <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>



Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 04:42:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:24 UTC