ATAG conformance review process

This thread's purpose is to reach consensus on the ATAG conformance review
process in light of the latest W3C QA activity [2].

I begin with my comments on the existing informal note [1].  Quoted here
with PJ: comments added

<begin quote>
Note about conformance reviews


There are reviews of conformance to the Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines for some tools. Note that reviews should be treated as
informative, not definitive, and they do not represent consensus or
endorsement of the W3C, the working group, or any other organization.


PJ: ...but have followed the following process to insure some level of
credibility.


The working group welcomes further reviews.


PJ: move the above statement & create another section titled "Submitting
Reviews".  Add to this section, Who to send review to: Working group staff.
That reviews are encouraged during candidate recommendation phase. And that
the working group reserves the privilege to remove unnecessary promotional,
marketing hype, or other statements not directly pertaining to the
conformance evaluation.


Each review should include enough information that it can be reproduced by
another reviewer. In particular, please provide the following information:


PJ: Each review will provide the following information before it is
published by the W3C working group:



     The name and email address of the reviewer
     When the review was done
     Which version / draft of the guidelines was used (the date or the
     specific "this version" URI are the best identifiers).
     Which version (version number, platform, supplementary tools) was
     reviewed
     PJ: specific URI for obtaining that product/tool
     PJ: Manufacturer and contact information provided
     A brief explanation of how the tool meets each checkpoint
     PJ:  Move statement way above here: Each review should include enough
     information that it can be reproduced by another reviewer
     A conclusion stating whether the tool conforms to the guidelines
     draft, in the opinion of the reviewer.


Please note that for many tools the working group has identified a contact
in the development team who may be able to provide some early feedback on
evaluations and identify possible errors. If you have done a review, please
offer the development team of the tool an opportunity for comment (one or
two weeks) before publishing it.

PJ: change; "If you have..., please...
     to: "All reviews published in W3C space have offered the developer ...

PJ: minimum of two weeks

PJ: All reviews will offer to link to the manufacturer's response to the
review if provided.  The reviewer/working group may chooses not to address
all the manufacturers response comments, but will note those it doesn't if
the manufacturer desire.

PJ: Working group will maintain published review and add links to newer
reviews of newer release of products as they become available.  For
example, Review of product 1.0 will add link in front matter pointing to
review of product 2.1 when it is published.

PJ: Reviews are maintained while the Working Group is charted or the effort
is transferred to another working group, i.e. Education and Outreach
working group.

<end quote>

[1] Authoring Tool Conformance Reviews http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/reviews/
[2] W3C QA Activity Statement http://www.w3.org/QA/Activity

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Research Division - Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Rd,  Austin TX  78758    http://www.ibm.com/able

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2001 20:17:45 UTC