W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > May 2005

Fwd: specific concerns re: responses to WAI CG on SpecGL?

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 12:51:55 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050503124713.022045e8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

In particular, what changes would you suggest to the "resolution" and/or 
"status"
  wording in the SpecGL DoC[1] on issues 1082-1091 (see forwarded message 
following)?

Thanks and best wishes..

Tim Boland NIST

[1]:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/SpecGL-DoC.html

>Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 12:27:24 -0400
>To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
>From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
>Subject: specific concerns re: responses to WAI CG on SpecGL?
>Cc: dom@w3.org
>
>Could you please give me a little more specific guidance as to how I should
>redraft the responses?    If you could tell me the specific nature of your
>concerns, that would be helpful to me..
>
>Thanks..
>
>At 12:16 PM 5/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>>I have a problem with this answer for now and with Dom's comments.
>>
>>Could you redraft it Tim?
>>
>>
>>Le 05-04-22 à 09:16, Tim Boland a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>Per my assignment,  following are draft QAWG responses to WAI CG
>>>re: issues 1082, 1083, 1085, 1087, 1089, 1090, 1091.   Note that
>>>since 1091 is marked as a duplicate of 1049, I wasn't sure how to
>>>handle this one..
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>Tim Boland NIST
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1082 (extensibility in the case
>>>of WCAG2.0)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1082):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1082#c1
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group agrees? with the WAI CG (or indicates that the
>>>WAI CG's interpretation
>>>as stated in Original Comment for Issue 1082 is correct?)
>>>that WCAG2.0 guidelines/success criteria can be extended, because
>>>the Guidelines
>>>are deliberately generic; thus they can be applied and adapted
>>>(extended) by
>>>different policy makers, and extensibility is appropriate.   The QA
>>>Working Group
>>>  suggests that WCAG2.0 documentation indicate that it is allowable
>>>to add additional
>>>  guidelines/criteria to those already in WCAG2.0 for the previously- 
>>> stated purpose,
>>>  but that such additions should be in the style of existing WCAG2.0
>>>success
>>>criteria/guidelines if possible.  Furthermore, the QA Working Group
>>>suggests that
>>>  the mechanism for such extensibility should be defined formally in
>>>the
>>>WCAG2.0 documentation.  The QA Working Group believes that such
>>>extensibility
>>>  considerations as mentioned previously are consistent with "2.4.3
>>>Extensibility and
>>>Extensions in the revised SpecGL draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#extensions
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1083 (Deprecation in case of
>>>WCAG1.0/WCAG2.0)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1083):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1083#c1
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group acknowledges that the WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0
>>>documents are very different
>>>in style, and that mapping between WCAG1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG2.0
>>>in such a way that would
>>>allow such Checkpoints to be marked as decprecated in WCAG2.0 would
>>>be indirect and difficult.
>>>However, the QA Working Group believes that the creation of such a
>>>mapping is important,
>>>because specification users need to know the evolution of
>>>particular features from WCAG1.0 to
>>>WCAG2.0.  The QA Working Group suggests that an appendix be created
>>>in WCAG2.0 with the mapping
>>>desired by the QA Working Group (indicated previously), showing and
>>>explaining the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to
>>>WCAG2.0; in such an appendix,
>>>the QA Working Group suggests to use whatever format is most
>>>appropriate in meeting the objectives
>>>of the appendix.   The QA Working Group believes that such an
>>>approach mentioned previously would
>>>be consistent with "2.4.4 Deprecation" in the revised SpecGL draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#deprecation
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1085 (detailed table of contents)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1085):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c1
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #2:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c2
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI CG that the table of
>>>contents should go into deeper levels
>>>to to be able to find requirements and good practices more easily
>>>and quickly.  Note that in
>>>the revised SpecGL draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/
>>>
>>>the List of Requirements and List of Good Practices are linked
>>>directly
>>>  after the Table of Contents, and are also numbered consecutively
>>>for easier reference.
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1087 (address Accessibility in
>>>Requirements)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1087):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c1
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #2:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c2
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG that
>>>SpecGL should mention the
>>>need to consider accessibility while writing a specification.   The
>>>QA Working Group
>>>further desires that SpecGL should mention the need to additionally
>>>consider
>>>internationalization and device independence while writing a
>>>specification.  Accordingly,
>>>a new Section 3.3 ("Accessibility, Internationalization, and Device
>>>Independence Considerations")
>>>has been created in the revised SpecGL draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#address-other-topics
>>>
>>>Note that there is a reference to the XML Accessibility Guidelines
>>>within Section 3.3.
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1089 (Need Clarifications for
>>>2.2 Requirement A)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1089):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c1
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #2:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c2
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG to
>>>change the Requirement
>>>"Identify who or what will implement the specification" to
>>>"Identify who and/or what
>>>will implement the specification".   Accordingly, Requirement 03
>>>(old 2.2A) in the
>>>  revised SpecGL Draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle
>>>
>>>has been changed as indicated? (NOTE: THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET -
>>>SENT SEPARATE MESSAGE ON
>>>THIS!)
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1090 (Managing Variability in
>>>WCAG2.0)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1090):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1090#c1
>>>
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI WG that the approach taken by
>>>the WAI CG in managing variability through conformance to three
>>>levels of
>>>success criteria (as indicated in Original Comment) is correct in
>>>interpretation.  The QA Working Group believes that this approach is
>>>consistent with "2.4 Managing Variability" of revised SpecGL draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#variability
>>>
>>>The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks
>>>the WAI CG for any input
>>>into this proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1091 (Formal Language vs. Prose:
>>>Ambiguity)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Original Comment (Issue 1091):
>>>
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html
>>>
>>>Additional Comment #1:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1091#c1
>>>
>>>(NOTE: This bug is marked as a duplicate of bug 1049.  Should I
>>>just reference the response to
>>>bug 1049, or point to Good Practice 11 in revised SpecGL:
>>>
>>>http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#formal-language-gp
>>>
>>>Not sure which approach is best?)
>>
>>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>>W3C Conformance Manager
>>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:35 UTC