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

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

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:27:23 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20010316204209.04029f00@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
AG:: All clear.

Please record that I accept the Group's responses to these comments.

There are a few remarks below but that is the bottom line after all is said
and
done.

I am also sending under separate cover an editorial comment [not intended
to be
booked as an Issue] that came from re-checking these points.

Al

At 12:53 PM 2001-03-12 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Al,
>
>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
>comments,
>
> - Ian
>
>[1]
<http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html>http://server
.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
>[2]
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UA
AG10-20010309/
>[3]
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call>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
>       definitions
>
>       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
>       meeting:
>        
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-351>http://www.w3.o
rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-351
>

"Disagreed' may be a little strong to say, here.

I did not give you specific recommendations for change, just suggested that
you
review how you were using priorities.

On a positive note, I do believe that with the clarification of the
checkpoints
that has taken place since the version on which I commented the priorities are
now in better synchronization with the usage in WCAG 1.0 than before. 
Congratulations.

> #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:
>      
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357>http://lists
.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357
>

OK.

>---------------------------------------------
>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:
>      
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345>http://www.w3.o
rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345
>

See separate email on editorial comment to Note following checkpoint 1.1.

> #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."

Given that it is nearly impossible to define a crisp minimum requirement for
backward compatibility in the current technology context, this will probably
have to do.  

>
>-----------------------------------------
>The UAWG answered the following questions:
>-----------------------------------------
>
> <RELATED>
> #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?)
> </RELATED>
>
>       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
>       properties 
>       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 /
>       viewport
>       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
>      
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-355>http://www.w3.o
rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-355
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)  
<http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>  
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 21:05:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT