W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

Quality Assurance (QA) Questions Re: Draft of WCAG

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:29:48 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20060321105452.00c19a90@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I just wanted to check on three QA questions following, at this point in 
WCAG2.0 development:

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST


(Question 1)   How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent 
discussions on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality 
Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 2 [1] (excerpted following)?

---------begin excerpted Requirement 2 text-------------
"
Requirement 2:  Define the scope.

What does it mean?

Describe what the specification is about. Let the reader know the topics 
covered in the specification.

Why care?

Scope is one of the first sections a reader reads, so it is important to 
capture their attention and make sure they understand what the 
specification is about. It helps to keep the specification content focused. 
It helps reviewers determine when the specification is over-stepping its 
mandate and offers the possibility for revising the specification while it 
is in development. It also helps readers know the limits or boundaries of 
the specification and whether it is of interest to them.
"
----------------end excerpted Requirement 2 text-----------------------------

NOTE: There are also techniques and examples in [1], which haven't been 
excerpted here, but which may be useful..





(Question 2)   How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent 
discussions on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality 
Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 3 [2] (excerpted following)?

-----------------------------begin excerpted Requirement 3 
text-------------------------------
"
Requirement 3: Identify who and/or what will implement the specification.

What does it mean?

Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of products or services) 
upon which the requirements are imposed. If multiple classes of products 
are targeted by the specification, make sure each is described. Examples of 
classes of products include: content, producer of content, player, 
protocol, API, agent, and guidelines.

Why care?

The class of products helps define the scope of the specification and is 
needed when defining conformance. It also helps the reader know the target 
of the specification – that is, to discover and focus on what they have 
turned to the document for and avoid what they may find immaterial.
"
---------------------------------end excerpted Requirement 3 
text-----------------------------------------

NOTE: There are also related items, techniques and examples in [2], which 
haven't been excerpted here, but which may be useful..




(3) How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent discussions 
on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality Assurance 
Specification Guidelines Requirement 4 [3] (excerpted following)?  (NOTE: 
Appendix E -"References"- of WCAG2.0 is currently denoted as 
"non-normative".   Is there a list of normative references for WCAG2.0, and 
if not, is one needed?)

---------------------------------begin excerpted Requirement 4 
text-----------------------------------------
"
Requirement 4: Make a list of normative references.

What does it mean?

  A specification is rarely developed from scratch: it usually relies on 
other technologies defined in different specifications. The Working Group 
has to identify any specifications that define the core technologies of the 
developed technology.

Why care?

For the Working Group, normative references have an immediate benefit: “Do 
not reinvent the wheel.” Using features already defined in other documents 
helps to minimize the size of the specification and to avoid ambiguities by 
rewriting the same concepts.
Knowing that a part of a specification is based on another technology is a 
huge benefit for implementers as it clarifies the implications for 
conformance. Normative references may help implementers to minimize their 
work by using conformant libraries already implemented elsewhere.
More generally, normative references might help readers understand where 
the technology is coming from and therefore how to use it in combination 
with other technologies they may already know.
"
---------------------------------------------end excerpted Requirement 4 
text-------------------------------

NOTE: There are also related items, techniques and examples in [3], which 
haven't been excerpted here, but which may be useful..




[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-scope-principle
[2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle
[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-norm-principle






>xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
>
>Took a bit to pull it all together.  Had to review all of our decisions 
>and minutes going back to find all the resolutions that would affect it.
>
>
>
>Think we have it now.  Take a good look to be sure we got them all.
>
>
>
><http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
>
>
>
>We are going through the last remaining issues now to be sure there aren t 
>any C1 issues lying in wait while you give this a read.
>
>
>
>
>Gregg
>
>------------------------
>
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
><<http://trace.wisc.edu/>http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>For a list of our list discussions 
><http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/>http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/
>
>The Player for my DSS sound file is at 
><http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
><http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 16:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT