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

Responses to Constantine Stephanidis issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:11:41 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB2C7DD.9602E03@w3.org>
To: cs@ics.forth.gr
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Constantine,

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed the
non-editorial last call issues (443-446) you raised;
please refer to the email source of the issues [0].

The complete second last call issues list [1] is available
online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions have been
incorporated into the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].

  NOTE: The issue titles relate to the 23 October 2000 last call
  draft [4]. In my comments below, checkpoint numbers, etc. have
  been updated to correspond to the 9 March 2001 draft.

Please indicate before 27 March 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. If you do
not think you respond before 27 March, please let me know.  The
Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the
disposition of comments or not. More information about the
process we are following is available in section 5.5.2 of the W3C
Process Document [3].

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

 - Ian

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000OctDec/0333
[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
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023/

===============================================
The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:
===============================================

---------------------
#446: Checkpoint 6.1: Consider making the checkpoint scalable
(variable priority linked to WCAG)

 Comment: Rather than make what is now checkpoint 8.1 a 
 relative priority checkpoint the UAWG has decided that the
 UAAG 1.0 must "lead" here: if user agents do not support
 the P3 features required by WCAG 1.0, then it is likely
 that authors will never have the chance to use them. Thus, the
 requirement remains 

   "8.1 Implement the accessibility features of all implemented
   specifications (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata
   languages, graphics formats, etc.). The accessibility features of a
   specification are those identified as such and those that satisfy
   all of the requirements of the "Web Content Accessibility
   Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

===============================================
The UAWG agreed with you:
===============================================

---------------------
#443: Checkpoint 1.4: Device indepdent access to pointer (mouse)
specific events

  Comment: I believe that our revisions to checkpoints 9.1-9.7
  address your concern that users be able to activate device-dependent
  event handlers in a device-independent manner. 

---------------------
#444: Guideline 1 rationale needs clarification

  Comment: The introduction has been revised and the relationship
  between the requirements of this document and the impact on
  assistive technologies should be much clearer. Guideline 1 rationale
  has been reduced to discussion of input and output redundancy.

===============================================
The UAWG answered your question:
===============================================

---------------------
#445: Checkpoint 1.3: What about systems that do not use the keyboard
at all, but provide accessibility solutions?

  Comment: This document has been designed for systems in which
  the keyboard is fundamental for access (it assumes that it is).
  This may exclude some software, but that software was not the
  target of UAAG 1.0. The conformance section states:

     "Note: Conformance to the requirements of this document is
     expected to be a strong indicator of accessibility, but it is
     neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for ensuring the
     accessibility of software. Some software may not conform to this
     document but still be accessible to some users with
     disabilities. Conversely, software may conform to this document
     but still be inaccessible to some users with disabilities. Please
     refer to the section on the scope of requirements for conforming
     user agents."

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 21:11:45 GMT

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