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

RE: UAAG review comments (personal)

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:22:04 +0100
To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001d01c2687b$fcef1bf0$0d02000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2>

Hi Ian,

I have forwarded your responses to the i18n group comments to the i18n group for review. Thankyou.

I wanted to come back on the following:

>  > #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. ..."

I was actually referring to the text related to guidelines, not checkpoints.  The first bulleted list in ch2 mentions the guideline number and guideline title (which I assume are both inside the box), but then goes on to the rationale without mentioning the intervening bold text (eg. From Guideline 1: "Ensure that the user can interact with the user agent (and the content it renders) through different input and output devices.")  It is this bold text I am querying.

Cheers,
RI

============
Richard Ishida
W3C

The W3C Internationalization Activity has restructured, and has issued a call for participation.  
See http://www.w3.org/International/about.html

tel: +44 1753 480 292
http://www.w3.org/International/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: 24 September 2002 23:39
> To: ishida@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UAAG review comments (personal)
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 30 September 2002 08:25:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:11 GMT