Quality Assurance issue summary and proposals

Background and proposal to close 25 issues

The Quality Assurance component in bugzilla was created as a "checklist" to help ensure we met QA Framework: Specification Guidelines (SpecGL). 40 of the 41 issues were created October 2004 before SpecGL became a Recommendation. SpecGL changed quite a lot between October 2004 and August 2005 when it became a Recommendation. Two major changes:

• The checkpoints were divided into "Requirements" and "Good Practices." Although we address many of the Best Practices, we should focus on Requirements. If we close all of the issues related to Best Practices, we can close issues: 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1299, 1314, 1315, 1462, 1465, 1466, 1467, 1468, 1470, 1471, 1472, 1475, 14765, 1477
• Several checkpoints were deleted. The following issues should be closed because the checkpoints have been deleted from SpecGL: 1302, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1482

Issues that are OBE or addressed by edits

issue 1241 - issue summary for Quality Assurance

We can close with this summary

issue 1298 - Define the scope.

Suggest we close with the comment: We do this in the abstract. SpecGL suggests a separate Scope section, but believe that we satisfy this requirement.

Issue 1300 - Identify who or what will implement the specification

Suggest we close the issue with the comment: We cover this in "Related documents" - kind of an odd section to find it, but it's there.

Issue 1301 - Make a list of normative references

Suggest we close with the comment: Our references are currently non-normative. If none of those are required for conformance, then I don't see a need to list normative references.

Issue 1312 - Define the terms used in the normative parts of the spec

Suggest we close with the comment: We do this by linking words to their definition in the Glossary.

Issue 1313 - Create conformance labels for each part of the conformance model

Suggest we close with the comment: We do this with Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA

Issue 1316 - Use a consistent style for conformance requirements and explain how to distinguish them.

Suggest we close with the comment: We do this by grouping SC by level, unique numbering of each SC, and formatting (guidelines are in blue, SC in lists, etc.)

Issue 1317 - Indicate which conformance requirements are mandatory, which are recommended and which are optional

Suggest we close with the comment: The Levels satisfy this requirement.

Issue 1463 - If the technology is subdivided, then indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance.

Suggest we close with the comment: The Levels satisfy this requirement.

Issue 1464 - If the technology is subdivided, then address subdivision constraints.

Suggest we close with the comment: The definition of levels satisfy this requirement.

Issue 1473 - Identify deprecated features

Suggest we close with the comment: Believe that the WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 mapping addresses this issue.

Issue 1474 - Define how deprecated feature is handled by each class of product.

Suggest we close with the comment: This is either n/a, covered by the mapping, covered by Understanding WCAG 2.0 and Techniques, or all of the above. :)

Proposals to close issues with changes

Issue 765 - Testing SC against use cases and inaccessible content

Propose closing this issue by: Creating a Candidate Recommendation to-do list and adding this issue to it.

Issue 1291 - Complete the Conformance clause template and Issue 1292 - Include a conformance clause

I completed the template and did not find the results useful. Our conformance section covers this requirement, but we need to more specifically summarize which parts of the document are normative and which are informative.

Propose closing this issue by: Including a short statement at the beginning of the conformance section or the introduction and close the issue: "The Introduction, Principles, and Guidelines are informative. Success Criteria are normative."

Keep open; perhaps address by...

Issue 1469 - Address Extensibility

Suggest that we address the issue by:

Writing (perhaps with EOWG help) "Understanding WCAG 2.0 for Policy Makers" to help them understand how to use the document, set baselines, reference the document, select conformance levels, and to clarify the extensibility of wcag 2.0 (baseline, scope, etc. - as they relate to policy.)

action someone: write a proposal