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

Responses to Richard Premack issues raised during second last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:26:46 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB2CB66.2802534A@w3.org>
To: richardp@abac.com
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed the
non-editorial last call issues (371, 373, 374) 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/0305
[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:

#371: Checkpoint 3.8: Priority should be raised from P2 to P1

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 3.7. The Working Group did not
  agree that this was a P1 requirement (to cnofigure the UA not
  to render images). In particular, rendering speed was not considered
  a sufficient criterion for making this a P1 checkpoint.

#373: Checkpoint 10.5: Propose raising to Priority 1

  Comment: This is now checkpoint 12.5. If the result of a change
  benefits accessibility, it will be covered at a P1 level by
  checkpoint 10.1. Documenting other changes was not considered
  a P1 requirement by the Working Group since the user has
  access to the full documentation anyway, at a P1 level, per
  checkpoint 12.1. Thus, it is still possible to use the software,
  even if one is not made aware specifically of the changes.

The UAWG agreed with you:

#374: Definition: Selection, current selection and use of inflected

  Comment: The definition of selection now reads, instead of
  "inflected speech":

  "The selection may also be rendered through changes in speech
  prosody, for example."

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 21:27:38 UTC

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