- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:37:30 -0700
- To: Bruno von Niman <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
- Cc: 'Mary Ellen Zurko' <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>, public-wsc-wg@w3.org
On 2007-06-26 14:43:54 +0200, Bruno von Niman wrote: > It is my intention to have the comments turned into Issues, as > requested, within a week (as most seem to still apply), as these > were drafted with a more serious purpose than conversational or > awareness and we regard them (at least some) as quite important > with regard to future work. It's up to you to cover them now or > later (during a last call phase-in a way comparable to WCAG 2.0 > some of you will be familiar with). Whatever option, I just want > to assure you that our intentions are all-positive, trying to > ensure the best possible consumer experience! Bruno, I don't think anybody doubted your positive intentions in submitting the comments. They are highly welcome. Skimming through your comments, I think A.9.a and A.9.c (the last in particular) is by far out of scope for this Working Group -- but maybe I just don't understand what you really mean. So, please consider elaborating. B.2 points at an interesting philosophical issue: *What* do we want people to actually understand? Risks? Technology? I agree it's an important question; I'm not sure, yet, how to best reflect or address it in the note. B.4 claims that the mobile web is not addressed; I think that isn't actually true, given Luis' proposed changes. The scope of the Working Group certainly says nothing to *exclude* the mobile web. B.5 challenges one of the working assumptions that I think the group agreed on at the time, mostly based on the analysis that addressing shared PCs is actually platform-level work and therefore out of scope. If you would have an example of what it might mean to address shard PCs without overstepping the chartered scope of the group, that would be most helpful. B.6 suggests extending the scenarios by explicitly mentioning modalities and constraints on the users. The current use cases should be phrased modality-neutral (I'd hope -- there might be some where that isn't really true). So I wonder if it would be more useful to call out the various kinds of scenarios that you mention in an orthogonal way. Incidentally, I don't understand how you would change scenario 19 to address multicultural aspects, so some elaboration on that would be most useful. B.7 is phrased on a very general level; I'd love to understand better what you have in mind. I have no particular input on B.8. I hope this helps in framing the issues when you enter them into tracker... Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 14:37:32 UTC