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

Re: QAWG response to OpsGL comments

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:26:43 +0200
Message-ID: <3F3261A3.A6051D8B@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Hello Jon

Even though I'm not a regular participant on the QA WG, I saw your
message and wanted to react, since I still have a foot in both QA and
WAI domains at W3C.

Basically, I agree with Lofton and the resolution.

> 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.  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.

As it stands, making sure the needs of PWD are taken into account at
W3C is the role of WAI (PF is that case), not QA. Similar situation
for I18N or Device Independence.

> 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.

Yes, and when that happens, WAI PF should see it and correct it.

> 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.

Coordination is one thing, replacement another.

> 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, 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.

I disagree with you on that.

If a "super" horizontal "police" is to be created, we'll of course be
part of the discussions of what it should be and do, but that's a
different situation from where we are now.

You're asking us to add accessibility requirements as part of the
overall W3C TR process, thru some expected QA policies (which are not
yet enforceable)

It may be a good long term goal, but is not something we are at the
liberty of doing at this point.

Let's take an hypothetical example:

- The *ML WG say in their charter that they will comply with some QA
level, say AA, for their spec and tests, meaning that all the MUST
statements in their spec will be described with a formal assertion and
a test case will be produced.

- They also say in their charter that all the accessibility features
will be MUST (that could be some level of XAG, BTW)

Already, at that point, it's QA fighting to get them to agree to the
first point, and WAI to agree to the second.

Later on, 2 cases:

- some *alt* attribute is there, but is not a MUST in their spec.

if that happens, it's for WAI PF to remind them of their charter.

- the *alt* is there, is a MUST, but there's not assertion for it, and
no test.

there it's for QA to remind them of their deliverables.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 10:26:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:31 UTC