W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > November 2005

RE: Next step

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:40:29 -0600
To: "'Michael Cooper'" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <00c201c5f514$5f8d1640$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>


Closed em all.  We should be so lucky on the rest

Thanks much Michael for the quick action.  
Everyone - note that issues   244, 889, 934, 970, 993, 1133, 1537 
are also covered in Michaels evaluation  - but are in the paragraph not the

Lets make up a questionnaire on closing these.   Michael - since you know
how - can you make a questionnaire.  For each one put your recommendation
and the following choices

a) Agree - to close it per recommendation
b) Close it with the following changes.
c) Keep it open for the following reason.



For you others - we will prepare your questionnaires for you. Just post a
note like Michael's here. 

Michael - once you get the questionnaire up I will post a note to the group
and also post results to GL in a standard form so our work is transparent
and others can comment if they like.

Thanks again. 


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:11 PM
To: public-wcag-teama@w3.org; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org;
Subject: RE: Next step

I volunteered for issues for Guideline 4.2. Below are my brief
recommendations. Note: to view the issue, append the issue number to the URL
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=> (I didn't want to put
15 nearly identical URLs into this post).

There are a number of issues in the "pending" state: 244, 889, 934, 970,
993, 1133, 1537. I recommend we close them all, as resolved by the baseline.
I'm not sure the reviewers who raised the issues will agree the baseline is
the solution they were looking for but they can raise new issues about that
if needed.

Below are my recommendations for open issues, using the key suggested by
Gregg and repeated at the bottom of the message. For items coded "3" -
reject and close - I provided a brief rationale. The others didn't seem to
require that, but I can explain during teleconference if needed.

822:  1
971:  2
972:  3 - many of us don't like alternate versions, but for some
technologies it is the only way
1050: 3 - baseline and technology independence are future-proofing
approaches; guide docs support
1418: 1
1536: 1
1713: 2
1714: 3 - scalability constantly discussed but determined a UA issue

1 - addressed by our current edits
2 - OBE (overcome by events) (e.g. the bug no longer applies with our new
3 - Suggest rejecting comment and closing (based on our discussions to date)
4 - Suggest making the following change and closing it
5 - keep item open.


--- Signature ---

Michael Cooper
Accessibility Product Manager, Watchfire
1 Hines Rd Suite 200, Kanata, ON  K2K 3C7  Canada
Tel: +1 (613) 599-3888 x4019
Fax: +1 (613) 599-4661
Email: michaelc@watchfire.com
Web: http://www.watchfire.com/
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 18:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:33 UTC