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

Responses to Mark Novak issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 22:23:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3B427E0F.49D34818@w3.org>
To: menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Mark,

The User Agent Guidelines Working Group (UAWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the third last call
review of the 9 April 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1]. 

This is the UAWG's formal response to the issues you raised,
which have been logged in the Working Group's issues list [4].
The UAWG's resolutions have been incorporated into the 22 June
2001 draft of the UAAG 1.0 [5]. 

Please indicate before 19 July whether you are satisfied with the
UAWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 19 July, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the UAWG's responses to each of your issues.

Note: Where checkpoint numbers have changed, I indicate the
mapping to the 22 June 2001 draft.

Thank you,

 _ Ian

-----------------------------------------------
1) Process requirement to address last call issues
-----------------------------------------------

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 8 February 2001 Process Document, in
order for the UAAG 1.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal
response:

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. There are currently two
objections that the UAWG will carry forward with the document in
a request to advance to Candidate Recommendation. Each concerns
the priority of checkpoint 12.1, one that the priority should be
lowered, the other that the priority should be raised. There are
additional supporters of each position.

  Phill Jenkins:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0528
    
  Gregory Rosmaita:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0553

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010622/

-----------------------------------------------
2) Issues you raised and responses
-----------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 472: Checkpoint 6.6: Clarify what is meant by "Accessibility API" 
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#472
------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue summary: The term "accessibility API" is not well-defined.

Resolution: The UAWG agreed with your comment, and deleted the term
and the checkpoint. Instead, the checkpoints of Guideline 6 make
requirements to use APIs that are either defined by W3C
Recommendations or have been designed for interoperability with ATs.
The API requirement that 6.6 attempted to make has been integrated
(more consistently) in checkpoints 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 of the 22 June
draft.  Please refer to the draft for the full text of the
checkpoints.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 473: Checkpoint 9.4: Priority of list of event handlers lower
than priority of activation
http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#473
------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue summary:  The priority of querying an element for which
event handlers have been associated with it is lower than the priority
for activating those event handlers. But how do you know they are
there to activate?

[This is 9.6 in the 22 June draft.]

Resolution: The UAWG did not agree to raise the priority of this
checkpoint, maintaining its position that it is a P1 requirement to
navigate to and activate event handlers, and P2 to be able to
interrogate the element for its event handlers. In general, users
without disabilities activate event handlers without being able to
query the document to find which ones are present. The WG felt it
would be possible, though admittedly not convenient, to interact with
content in the absence of a list of event handlers. It is possible to
provide access to all the event handlers (e.g., by allowing the user
to navigate to each one serially) without provding an explicit list of
handlers.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 22:25:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:57 GMT