W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Level change survey

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:07:45 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0702141707n365b58c4n9285d7712b32252d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Li, Alex" <alex.li@sap.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <GV@trace.wisc.edu>

Yes, this survey is intended as much to provoke discussion as
anything. I am frustrated that we are at the same point that we have
always been on this topic, and we need to close these issues, so this
is my attempt to call the question. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the
answers that I generated, but it was the best I could do based on my
memory and the information I had available.

I attempted to generate a separate survey item for each SC, except
where the comments seemed to have the inextricably combined and I
couldn't see a sensible way to generate separate responses.

This is not a multiple choice on levels because what we need most are
the rationales for the decision. So just indicating preferred levels
will not close these issues.

The basis for the decisions is the definitions of levels that we
approved as part of the conformance rework and for which we approved
the closing of all the issues asking for level definitions. Here is a
pointer to the new conformance section that contains these level
definition, which I'll also post to the list:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/01/conformance-revs.html

You should make your responses as long and as complex as needed. And
because of the complexity of these issues, I would expect to review
the results of each one, unanimous consent or not.

Loretta

On 2/14/07, Li, Alex <alex.li@sap.com> wrote:
> The level change survey is poorly designed for important decisions on
> the table.  The radio button should be something like "change sc x.x.x
> to Lx" and "keep sc x.x.x at Lx" instead.  It is too easy to make
> unintended vote in this format for such important decision.
>
> Almost all these are legacy discussions that we have talked over for
> years.  There is insufficient new information on the issue comment to
> arrive at level change decision.  This set up an environment to make
> decision based on reactionism instead of reason.  Please show us how we
> arrive at the recommendations.  We should show the calculation as per
> Chicago F2F to make an informed decision here.  Please repost the
> calculation.
>
> We should not pass any vote by unanimous vote based on this survey.  All
> level change decisions should be discussed and voted explicitly.  Better
> yet, please scrap this survey, redesign, and put provide additional info
> before we proceed.
>
> 4.) 15 February 2007 Level Change Proposals
>      Survey: <http://tinyurl.com/3ajqrj>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 01:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:49 GMT