More review comments

A couple of comments came from the AC members after the close of the formal
review period. I will put them into the list of comments from members, and
have asked if they would send coments to the au list itself, but to
summarise:

(Please watch for these to be added formally, and verbatim, to the reviews
page, as I have rather brutally summarised the comments)

One commenter asked that we clarify guideline 7 to make it clear that when
custom components are added they should implement appropriate access methods
so that they are accesible in the same way as "standard" components.

Another had three comments:
1. It is not possible to integrate a specification into a tool without
sufficient lead time. It should be clear in the spec trhat this is OK.
2. It should be clear how conformance evaluation is done/by whom - things
like integrating into the look and feel have a degree of subjectivity
required.
3. Product references should not be in the recomendation itself.



my instant responses are:

The point about custom components is a good one, and we should clarify the
language of the intro to that guideline (and perhaps in the techniques).

the "When available" part of the requirement to use up-to-date specifications
should cover this case already.

I think the potential concern about conformance testing will be satisfied by
pointing to our conformance evaluations, where it is explained how they are
done, i.e. that they are essentially a self-assessment process, although we
hope to provide some good exemplars, and that at the moment W3C does not make
formal assessments.

I agree that specific products should not be referenced in the Guidelines
documet - I will check this.

cheers

Charles McCN


--Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                    http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia (I've moved!)

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 1999 23:43:12 UTC