W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2005

Bug#1009 "QA-related comments": Proposed Response

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:58:44 -0500
Message-ID: <424837C4.3060604@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
The various points from the bug description are listed below along with 
proposed actions:


 > I don't understand why the "rationales" are designated as
 > "normative"..

ACTION: Change wording of line:
FROM
A rationale for the checkpoint. (Normative)
TO
A rationale for the checkpoint. (Informative)


 > Perhaps Section 3 material should be moved to before the
 > Guidelines, since it mentions priorities and a reader
 > might want to know this material before accessing the
 > Guidelines, and conformance is an important subject that
 > should be "up front"

ACTION: Attempt to maintain consistency with other WAI GL's, but WCAG 
2.0 has conformance info before guidelines and UAAG 1.0 has them after. 
JR will contact WCAG-GL about this, since that is still a draft.


 > If an offering claims conformance to Level AA ATAG2.0 by immediately
 > passing all the Level AA tests first, does it also conform by
 > default to Level A (assumed to pass the Level A tests by default,
 > as a way of saving testing effort and resources)?   I assume not
 > from Figure 1 in Section 3?, but this is not explicitly stated..
 > What constraints are there on the various levels (subdivisions)?

ACTION 1: Add line:
Note: Conforming to a higher level (e.g. Double-"A") automatically 
entails conformance to a lower level (e.g. Single-"A") as well.

ACTION 2: Edit figure for clarity:
Attached.


 > A list of changes from ATAG1.0 to ATAG2.0 needs to be included
 > (probably as an appendix), as well as whether the specification
 > allows extensions

ACTION: An updated draft is attached (this will almost certainly change 
as last call comments are addressed.


 > PPPS Any deprecated features from ATAG1.0 to ATAG2.0 (see previous)
 > need to be identified;  if there are any, then ATAG2.0 needs
 > to define how to handle them

ACTION: These are identified in the attached ATAG version comparison 
document. Unlike a format recommendation, I do not believe that ATAG 2.0 
has to do anything to "handle" deprecated features.


Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896




conformance.png
(image/png attachment: conformance.png)

Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 16:59:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:05 GMT