W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Responses to Al Gilman issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:53:33 -0500
Message-ID: <3AAD0D1D.742E584E@w3.org>
To: asgilman@iamdigex.net, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your
last call issues (321, 340-359, 462). The issues list [1]
is available online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions
are available in the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the UAWG's
resolutions, whether you wish the WG to carry forward
any objections to the Director as the document advances, or
whether you require further clarification or comment.
Refer to section 5.5.2 of the 8 February 2001 W3C Process
Document [3] for information about requirements to formally
address issues prior to advancing to last call.

On behalf of the UAWG, thank you for your review and

 - Ian

[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call

The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:

 #351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG

       UAWG: We don't have new data that leads us to think that a
       change is necessary. Refer to minutes of AOL face-to-face

 #462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and
       redirection (3.6)
       NOTE: See checkpoints 3.5/3.6 in 9 March draft.

       UAWG: At their 8 march 2001 teleconf, the UAWG decided that
       there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify merging 
       these checkpoints at this time. 
       Minutes of 8 March 2001 telconf:

The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:

 #345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable?
       UAWG: Checkpoint simplified (no longer about APIs but
             about input devices). Also, for conformance, 
             keyboard operable always required, mouse and 
             pointing device required unless claim indicates 
             lack of conformance.

       Refer to minutes of AOL face-to-face meeting for more info:

 #349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently
       informative in 6.2)
       NOTE: See checkpoint 8.2 in the 9 March draft.

       UAWG: The WG (at the AOL face-to-face that you attended)
       did not add a requirement for support of deprecated features
       but instead put the following in the Techniques document:

         "For reasons of backward compatibility, user agents should
         continue to implement deprecated features of
         specifications. Information about deprecated language
         features is generally part of the language's specification."

The UAWG answered the following questions:

 #321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3
 #346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3, 
       leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement
 #358: Definition: Equivalent
 #359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?)

       UAWG: Refer to improved Guideline 2.
 #347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable? 
       What is definition?
       NOTE: See checkpoint 3.2 in 9 March draft.

       UAWG: Define "render" to mean "make available to the user
       through a viewport".

 #350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4?
       NOTE: See checkpoints 9.2 and 9.7 in 9 March draft.

       UAWG: Two differences: the requirements differ in both
       priority and the set of elements that may be included 
       in the navigation set.

 #352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable?
       NOTE: See checkpoint 10.4 in 9 March draft.    

       UAWG: No. The purpose of the checkpoint is context
       provided by an outline. The outline should also be
       navigable, but this is not the minimal requirement.

 #357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content
       NOTE: See section 3.2 in 9 March draft.

       UAWG: This has been rewritten to focus on how information
       is encoded in formats:

       "The checkpoint requires control of a content property that the
       subject cannot recognize because of how the content has been
       encoded in a particular format."

The UAWG adopted your suggestion:

 #340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for
       informative cross-refs.

 #341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
       NOTE: See checkpoint 2.10 in the 9 March draft.

 #342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
       NOTE: See checkpoints 3.5/3.6 in the 9 March draft.

 #343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia 
       checkpoints v. continuous-time
       NOTE: See Guideline 4 in the 9 March draft.

 #344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type.

 #348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard

 #353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement.
       NOTE: See checkpoints 10.2, 10.3, and 10.6 in the 9 March draft.
 #354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard /
       NOTE: See checkpoint 9.8 in the 9 March draft.

 #356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations"

You retracted the following:

 #355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 12:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC