W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: UAAG review comments (personal)

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:39:08 -0700
Message-ID: <3D90E98C.10206@w3.org>
To: ishida@w3.org
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org

Richard Ishida wrote:
 > Please find enclosed some personal last call comments on the User 
Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
 > Version reviewed was 21 August 2002
 > I18n WG comments will follow.

Hi Richard,

Thank you for your comments. I'm only sending a quick
reply here since I'm on the road.

  - Ian

 > #ri-1:
 > Sec 2, 1st bulleted list
 > It would be useful to clarify the intent and normative status of 
the bold text that immediately follows a guideline title.

See the beginning of section 2, which gives a succinct explanation
of the normative and informative parts of each checkpoint definition.

"Each checkpoint definition includes the following parts. Some parts 
are normative (i.e., relate to conformance); others are informative 
only. ..."

 > #ri-2:
 > Checkpoint 1.1, checkpoint provisions for this and all following 
checkpoints Consider naming the checkpoint provisions 1.1.1 or 1.1.a 
and so on, so they can be easily referred to directly.

We refer to them as checkpoint 1.1, provision 1 but I see no
harm in also people referring to them as "provision 1.1.1". The
anchors are already in place to link to these provisions (and
checkpoints, and guidelines), but the anchors are names, not
numbers, to survive edits across document versions.

 > #ri-3:
 > Checkpoint 1.1, last para
 > Shouldn't this para have some more formal status (perhaps within 
normative inclusions and exclusions)?

The UAWG left this as a "should" as the WG was unable to
"draw the line" about what needed to be available through
each input mode.

 > #ri-4:
 > Checkpoint 2.2, Sufficient technique 1
 > Suggest: 'text format, not just implemented" -> "text format, in 
addition to implemented"

Or: "Text formats beyond those implemented."

 > By the way, note that the numbering in the document is a little 
confusing.  Eg. there appear at first glance to be two sections 
labelled 1.1.

That's in part a historical artifact. I propose to leave
the numbering as is, but include a Note saying "Heads-up:
the numbering works this way:
  a) Chapter 2 has no subsections, only guidelines, checkpoints
     and provisions.
  b) Checkpoint 1.1 is discussed in Guideline two; that's different
     from "section 1.1".

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 18:43:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:32 UTC