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: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:03:03 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, ij@w3.org, mcmay@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org


At 01:35 PM 8/8/03 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>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.  [...]

While there may be differing views about your request, in this thread the 
discussion now seems to relate only to Specification Guidelines (SpecGL).

This thread started with a message to you [1], asking if you were satisfied 
with QAWG's response [2] to your comment [3] on the Last Call WD of "QA 
Framework: Operational Guidelines" (OpsGL).  I think perhaps we can resolve 
the OpsGL question, without resolving the larger topic.

You original OpsGL issue (LC-56) [3] talked about accessibility testing and 
said, "...may require having a specific person in charge of defining and 
monitoring the inclusion of accessibility features".  This is the 
operations-related part of the comment, in our view.

What we (QAWG) intended in our resolution of your issue, but it may have 
gotten lost, is this...

The issue of whether or not there is accessibility testing and what it 
would look like are topics for SpecGL and TestGL.  The topic of a "specific 
person" would indeed relate to OpsGL.  However, it is the QAWG's belief 
that an additional specific person is not needed, regardless of the 
resolution of QA/WAI scopes.  *If* it were decided that the representation 
and enforcement of certain WAI policies belonged in SpecGL and TestGL, and 
were within the scope of QA's responsibilities, then the monitoring of 
those policies would automatically be part of the job of the "QA 
Moderator".  OpsGL requires that each WG appoint a QA Moderator, who 
oversees all aspects of all QA activities in the WG.  A separate person 
would neither be necessary nor desirable.

We (QAWG) want to move forward with OpsGL (SpecGL is lagging behind by 
about 4-6 weeks).

Considering only OpsGL, does this resolution (as hopefully clarified now) 
satisfactorily address your OpsGL issue LC-56?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0008.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/OpsGL-DoC
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x56
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 17:02:52 UTC

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