W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: The ANEC comments and: Toward a last call for the Note

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:37:30 -0700
To: Bruno von Niman <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
Cc: 'Mary Ellen Zurko' <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070626143730.GE3529@raktajino.does-not-exist.org>

On 2007-06-26 14:43:54 +0200, Bruno von Niman wrote:

> It is my intention to have the comments turned into Issues, as
> requested, within a week (as most seem to still apply), as these
> were drafted with a more serious purpose than conversational or
> awareness and we regard them (at least some) as quite important
> with regard to future work. It's up to you to cover them now or
> later (during a last call phase-in a way comparable to WCAG 2.0
> some of you will be familiar with). Whatever option, I just want
> to assure you that our intentions are all-positive, trying to
> ensure the best possible consumer experience!

Bruno, I don't think anybody doubted your positive intentions in
submitting the comments.  They are highly welcome.

Skimming through your comments, I think A.9.a and A.9.c (the last in
particular) is by far out of scope for this Working Group -- but
maybe I just don't understand what you really mean.  So, please
consider elaborating.

B.2 points at an interesting philosophical issue: *What* do we want
people to actually understand?  Risks?  Technology?  I agree it's an
important question; I'm not sure, yet, how to best reflect or
address it in the note.

B.4 claims that the mobile web is not addressed; I think that isn't
actually true, given Luis' proposed changes.  The scope of the
Working Group certainly says nothing to *exclude* the mobile web.

B.5 challenges one of the working assumptions that I think the group
agreed on at the time, mostly based on the analysis that addressing
shared PCs is actually platform-level work and therefore out of
scope.  If you would have an example of what it might mean to
address shard PCs without overstepping the chartered scope of the
group, that would be most helpful.

B.6 suggests extending the scenarios by explicitly mentioning
modalities and constraints on the users.  The current use cases
should be phrased modality-neutral (I'd hope -- there might be some
where that isn't really true).  So I wonder if it would be more
useful to call out the various kinds of scenarios that you mention
in an orthogonal way.  Incidentally, I don't understand how you
would change scenario 19 to address multicultural aspects, so some
elaboration on that would be most useful.

B.7 is phrased on a very general level; I'd love to understand
better what you have in mind.

I have no particular input on B.8.

I hope this helps in framing the issues when you enter them into
tracker...

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 14:37:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:48 GMT