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

Re: QAWG response to OpsGL comments

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:35:03 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> (by way of Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>)
Cc: qa-chairs@w3.org, judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, ij@w3.org, mcmay@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I do not think that my recommendation refers to the creation of '"super" 
horizontal "police".  But I think it is an accurate model of how the W3C 
currently handles accessibility and internationalization issues.  Someone 
produces a specification and if PF or another WAI working group has the 
resources to check for accessibility then it will receive attention and 
feedback on accessibility(policing).  If not it is not clear if the spec 
either had any accessibility issues or what features it has to support 
accessibility.  This can help users of the spec determine if they want to 
use the specification.

All I am asking for is the people developing a specification need to 
explorer and document accessibility issues as a part of their groups design 
work.  The specification needs a section describing the accessibility 
features and problems of the spec.  I am sure there are many specs that 
will not have any accessibility issues and these section would be short, 
but there are some specs that will have more substantial issues and readers 
should be able to refer to a section  of a spec to know the status of 
accessibility for that specification.


At 10:31 AM 8/8/2003 -0600, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>Jon, I just noticed the addressing of this message of Daniel's -- it was 
>sent yesterday apparently only to www-qa-wg, which list you are not on:
>As Daniel may already be on holiday (until 8/22), I am redirecting it to 
>you.  If you wish to continue the substantive discussion in reply to 
>Daniel, might I please ask that you copy www-qa-wg@w3.org?  Thanks, -Lofton.
>### Daniel's message follows ###
>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.

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
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 Friday, 8 August 2003 14:35:03 UTC

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