W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: QAWG response to OpsGL comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:36:21 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030805084050.01f4f790@rockynet.com>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, ij@w3.org, mcmay@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>

Thanks for your quick reply.  I offer a couple of observations of my own -- 
this is not a QAWG position, and I would like to hear more views.

Also ... our QAWG teleconference agenda for next Monday (11th August, 11am 
EDT) is basically empty at this point.  Maybe it would be useful for you 
(any/all on this message distribution) to join us.  Is that a 
possibility?  Possibly we are misunderstanding what you are asking in your 
issue,

A couple of my comments are embedded...

At 08:51 AM 8/5/03 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>I am not happy with the response to my issue.  If one of the goals of the 
>W3C is promoting interoperability part of that needs to include the needs 
>of people with disabilities.

I have no dispute at all with that.

My question is:  where does the responsibility fit best?  can we (W3C) make 
sure that there is clear responsibility for identified accessibility 
requirements?  Preferably, any particular requirement would be in a single 
place, to avoid overlap and resulting confusion of 
responsibility.  Example:  WCAG 1.0 Level A compliance of Technical Reports 
(TR) is written into Pubrules, and enforced by Comm.

>It seems to me that part of the quality assurance process should be to 
>make sure that the needs of people with disabilities is taken into account 
>as part of the recommendation process.

Completely agree.


>It seems to me based on the resolution [1] that anything a working group 
>does not want to test, they can just make an informative part of their 
>specification.

Here is where the issue seems to arise.  Where is the W3C policy that 
requires that the technologies of all recommendations should have normative 
accessibility features/requirements?  And who has the responsibility for 
enforcing that policy?  IMO, this policy issue is much wider than the QA 
Activity, and exceeds QA's scope and authority for writing requirements.

This -- normative inclusion of accessibity features/requirements in all W3C 
technologies -- is clearly distinct from the WCAG/pubrules issue 
(accessibly writing, style, and presentation of TRs).

As we (QAWG) said in our reply, we don't anticipate anything new or 
different in QA Framework guidelines documents, **if** the Working Groups 
consider that they are required to normatively include accessibility 
features/requirements in any W3C technology.   I would think then that 
there would be two sorts of enforcement:

1.) someone (Comm, WAI, ?QA?) would verify that there are accessibility 
features in the technology.  E.g., perhaps Pubrules adds to section 1.6.4 a 
requirement for an "Accessibility features" clause, that summarize the 
accessible features of the technology, and Comm verifies the existence of 
the clause at pubrules-compliance-verification time.

2.) SpecGL (QA's Specification Guidelines) would then be used to verify 
that the accessibility-related requirements are properly written and 
identified, TestGL would be used to assess tests that are written for the 
requirements, test coverage of the specification, etc.


>Two of the stated goals in the charter [2] are:
>1. ensuring coordination with W3C Working Groups developing specifications 
>(formal channel, appeal);
>2. coordinating works with internal W3C horizontal groups: WAI, I18N, TAG 
>and Comm Team.
>
>It seems to me that your resolution basically says that a working group 
>does not need to deal with accessibility issues if they leave them out of 
>the specification,

This should NOT be permissible.  But IMO, it exceeds QA's authority to 
write such a broad policy and impose it from the QA Framework family.

>putting the burden back on the limited WAI resources to pursue the working 
>group for accessibility issues.  This approach seems counter to your 
>stated scope of ensuring coordination with internal W3C working group.

Coordination is clearly needed now.  Perhaps we can start with QA's Monday 
teleconference?  I think we all want the same thing -- we just have 
different ideas or are uncertain how to achieve it.

Regards,
-Lofton.

>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0054.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/charter#Scope
>
>At 05:12 PM 8/4/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>Dear Jon,
>>
>>The QA Working Group (QAWG) thanks you for your comments on the Last Call 
>>Working Draft of "QA Framework:  Operational Guidelines" (OpsGL).  In the 
>>"Disposition of Comments" (DoC) document [1], you will find QAWG's 
>>response to your comments.  Please note that [1] is for Operational 
>>Guidelines only. We will generate separate tables for the Specification 
>>Guidelines and Introduction specifications.
>>
>>In the descriptive information before the table in [1], you will find a 
>>complete description of the contents of the DoC table.  One particular is 
>>worth noting.  The table extensively references an Editor's draft of 
>>OpsGL [2], to illustrate the resolution of issues.  This draft is stable 
>>in substance, although there is still some minor formatting work in 
>>progress (especially finishing the application of markup and styling to 
>>the guidelines and checkpoints.)
>>
>>The deadline for replies to this DoC document is 12pm (noon) EDT, Monday, 
>>18 August 2003. Your reply at your earliest convenience — whether you 
>>accept QAWG's disposition of your comment(s) or not — will help us to 
>>stay on schedule for progression of Operational Guidelines. If we do not 
>>hear from you (originator) by the deadline, your default reply is "accept 
>>QAWG's disposition of comments".
>>
>>If you do not accept QAWG's disposition of your comments, please provide 
>>details, including your reasons, and also what change to the disposition 
>>would be required to satisfy you.
>>
>>Please copy the QAWG list on your reply (www-qa-wg@w3.org -- the Cc: of 
>>this message).
>>
>>Regards,
>>Lofton Henderson
>>(QAWG co-chair, for the QAWG).
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/OpsGL-DoC
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/qaframe-ops-20030804
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>MC-574
>College of Applied Life Studies
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>
>Voice: (217) 244-5870
>Fax: (217) 333-0248
>
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>
>WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
>WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 12:36:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT