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

[Fwd: Responses to Mark Novak issues raised during third last call of UAAG 1.0]

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:44:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3B8F94AB.6CB7E1AC@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Hello,

To close the loop on his last call comments, I've forwarded
this comments from Mark with his permission.

Thanks Mark!

 - Ian

Mark Novak wrote:
> 
> hi Ian
> 
> thank you for allowing me to review the UAAG document, and also
> thank you to the UAAG group for considering my comments.  While
> I feel the UAAG groups handling of issue #473 is awkward at best,
> I do not have any alternate ideas to suggest at this time, so therefore
> agree with the UAAG's resolution.  Issue #472 looks to have been handled.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
> To: <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
> Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:23 PM
> Subject: Responses to Mark Novak issues raised during third last call of UAAG
> 1.0
> 
> > 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

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 09:46:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:58 GMT