W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2011

RE: re: AUWG agenda setting for the extended Oct 31 call

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:46:04 -0400
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49308EA8FAEF5@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
It seems like there are two kinds of "claims" under discussion - a formal "claim" in a legal sense that can only
be made by certain entities, and a less formal (perhaps third-party) claim that could be made by anyone..  Perhaps
both are important in their own way..  Maybe each of these could use different terms to distinguish them.

Maybe we need to come up with a definition of "claim"..

BTW, here is one definition of "claim":

and "claimant":

From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richards, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:55 AM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: re: AUWG agenda setting for the extended Oct 31 call

Hi all,

I took an action yesterday "To review the conformance section and propose and issues for a survey" (which is related to comment IBM1, see below). To that end, I started with WCAG 2.0's Conformance Claims section and took a fresh try at minimally modifying it for ATAG 2.0. The result, with changes tracked and some comments is attached (see attachment).

Can everyone (and especially Sueann) please have a look?

Which brings me to another discussion topic from yesterday: who can make a claim and the related comment MS2 (see below).

Here are some of my thoughts (not proposals yet):

         "Claims" should be limited to entities that have permission to modify and distribute the authoring tool's program code (the wording is rough - Please make improvement suggestions - but is meant to include the original developer as well as entities that improve on open source code to make something new etc.)

         I don't feel this is an unfair restriction since other people are of course free to use the freely available resources on the AUWG site to do their own accessibility reviews or to check the accuracy of claims.

         IMO claims should be made public for the following reasons:

o   It helps vendors by preventing cheating by unscrupulous vendors at the expense of honest ones

o   It helps end users research products

o   It is in line with W3C's general policies of openness

o   And it could help us find a solution to our collection of tools issue (see next bullet).

         We could tighten the "collection of tools" option as follows:

o   Part A is always evaluated on a tool-by-tool basis (I think is true, though it does risk splitting Parts A and B apart).

o   Part B can be evaluated on a collection of tools basis (primarily this is because some tools need/want to make use of external checking services)

o   Each tool in the collection must either:

  Be eligible for a claim by the Claimant (as discussed above) or

  Have a pre-existing public claim that the Claimant can link to (e.g. a checking service would create its own claim that authoring tools would then point to for that part)


> MS2:
The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if ATAG is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be both. This leads to a great deal of structural problems....
Proposal: No

> IBM1:
I do have a concern with one of the blocking issues raised on the conformance claim.  Why is ATAG not using the
same or  very similar conformance claim from WCAG 2.0?...

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 19:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:01 UTC