W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: COMMENTS on draft UA charter

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: 11 Jul 2003 23:45:35 -0700
To: Jon + Tracy + Palmer + Catherine Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-Id: <1057975312.816.9.camel@seabright>

On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 10:10, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> Please review and comment on the draft UA charter[1].  Please send
> comments or concerns before July 24th.  If no comments or concerns are
> received by July 24th I will send to Judy Brewer the working groups
> endorsement of the draft.

> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/charter-2003-05-draft.html

Hi Jon,

I have the following comments about the draft charter.

 - Ian

1) All of the references to the Process Document need to
   be updated to the relevant sections of the 18 June 2003

2) Section 2 Scope: I think that list item 5 is too broad,
   "review and comment on the work in other W3C Working
    Groups." At the very least, this needs to be scoped
   to "for those aspects related to user agent accessibility."
   Also, since this is generally the work of the PFWG,
   it should be clarified what process will be used to
   decide when the UAWG does this v. the PFWG.

3) Section 3. Deliverables.

   a) Do we really want to commit to a revision of
      the Techniques Document? I don't think we should
      in the charter.

   b) Item 5 should be deleted. It's too vague and
      there's already plenty of test suite work
      in bullets 2, 3, and 4. Also, we should not have to 
      adjust our work plan simply based on requests from 
      other WGs.

   c) Item 6. I think that "ongoing assessment" is too
      vague. We should commit, for example to producing
      an implementation report every 6 months (i.e.,
      two of them).

   d) Item 7. I think this is too vague. I would like the
      charter to state more clearly what we are expecting
      to work on in advance.

4) Section 4. Dependencies. I think versions "1.0" of the
   other WAI Guidelines need to be updated to "2.0".

5) Section 5. Duration. It's likely that "June 2004" will
   be too soon.

6) Section 6. Success. 

   a) Item 2, test suites for HTML/CSS, multimedia, and
      SVG. First, "Multimedia" is too vague. Second,
      do we have committed or potential resources to work 
      on these test suites?

   b) Item 4, implementations of UAAG 1.0. I believe that
      this point is too ambitious. I agree that it is
      a sign of success of the UAWG if ultimately there
      are conforming user agents. I'm not sure that it's
      a sign of failure if there aren't.

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2003 02:45:37 UTC

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