Action Item from Mar 22 AUWG Telecon

Evaluating ATAG2.0 WD (dated 24 Feb 2004) against Priority 1 Checkpoints for Checklist of Checkpoints for QA Framework: Specification Guidelines. Only normative documents need to be considered for evaluation currently; this may change in the future.

• 1.1-Include a scope statement: The subject matter of the specification is defined in ATAG2.0 WD Section 1.1, and the statement of objectives and goals is in the ATAG2.0 WD Abstract. Does this information occur at the beginning of the document, as is required?
• 2.1-Identify classes of product: In ATAG2.0 WD Section 1.1 four types of authoring functionality are mentioned as part of the authoring interface for an authoring tool. A specification must list the classes of product for which it defines conformance requirements; can the types of authoring functionality mentioned be defined as "classes of products"? If so, are these types used in the ATAG2.0 WD where it makes sense to use them (as is required)? If another type is used in ATAG2.0 WD, is it defined and described where it is used (as is required)?
• 2.2-For each class of product, define the conformance requirements: ATAG2.0 WG Section 2 defines conformance requirements for authoring tools; if this is a single class of products, then Section 2 will suffice. Otherwise, if the types of authoring functionality are each classes of products, that level detail is not given in ATAG2.0 WD; maybe in the techniques, but the techniques are non-normative?
• 3.1-Indicate whether or not the use of profiles is mandatory for conformance: Can the four types of authoring functionality in Section 1.1 ATAG2.0 WD be considered "profiles"? If so, I think that Section 1.1 would imply that the use of an authoring functionality as part of an authoring interface for an authoring tool is mandatory for conformance. Also, Section 2 ATAG2.0 WD mentions bundled tools; would they be considered "profiles"? If not, then I believe that profiles are not included in ATAG2.0 WD, and so this checkpoint would not apply.
• 3.4-If modules are chosen, indicate any mandatory conditions or constraints on their usage: I do not believe that modules are used in ATAG2.0 WD, except to the extent that ATAG2.0 Guidelines are modules. In any case, Section 1.3 relates to a certain degree the relationships between the ATAG2.0 Guidelines, but perhaps the following could be mentioned explicitly: (1) all ATAG2.0 guidelines mandatory, (2) ATAG2.0 guidelines should be considered in order, (3) any conditions or constraints upon use of the ATAG2.0 guidelines/checkpoints mentioned. If the Guidelines are not in fact modules, this checkpoint does not apply.
• 4.1-Identify each deprecated featureThere is nothing in ATAG2.0 I could find that refers to ATAG1.0 and changes between ATAG1.0 and ATAG2.0 (which may include deprecated features of ATAG1.0). I believe such a section should be included in ATAG2.0, as an aid to implementor. If there are no deprecated features in ATAG2.0 from ATAG1.0, this checkpoint does not apply. There is a requirement that each deprecated feature be documented in a normative secton.
• 4.2-For each class of product, specify the degree of support required for each deprecated feature and the conformance consequences of the deprecation: See 4.1 previously mentioned. If there are any deprecated features of ATAG1.0, their degree of support must be explicitly mentioned in ATAG2.0 (possibly for each "authoring functionality type" (see previous text on this?)
• 5.1-State the circumstances for when discretionary items are allowed: Does ATAG2.0 WD have any discretionary items included? If so, the rationale for including each item must be explicitly mentioned and each must be explicitly labelled as discretionary. If not, this checkpoint does not apply.
• 5.2-For implementation dependent values or features, address the allowable differences between implementations: ATAG2.0 WD must describe any permitted variations or constraints for how implementation-dependent values or features are realized by implementations (maybe in techniques, but they are non-normative?)
• 6.1-Indicate if the specification is extensible, and if extensions are allowed, define their scope and constraints: To my knowledge ATAG2.0 WD does not address extensions; if it doesn't ATAG2.0 WD must state the conditions under which extensions are allowed and disallowed, and if allowed, must state the scope of the extensions, their effect on conformance claims, any limitations or restrictions on use of the extensiosn, and the rationale for allowing extensions by referencing use cases and/or project requirements.
• 6.2-Prevent extensions from contradicting the specification: If ATAG2.0 WD includes language for extensions, ATAG2.0 WD must state that extensions cannot negate or change support for required functionality. If extensions are not allowed in ATAG2.0 WD, this specification is not applicable.
• 7.1-Use conformance key words: ATAG2.0 WD does define the way conformance requirements can be identified. Also, I believe that ATAG2.0 does use the method of RFC2119 keywords (definitions for MUST and SHOULD consistent with those in RFC2119).
• 7.2-Distinguish normative and informative content: I couldn't find where ATAG2.0 WD distinguishes normative text from informative content. If such a statement is not included, I believe it needs to be (perhaps in Section 1.3?)
• 7.3-Use Consistent Terminology: ATAG2.0 WD must use identical wording to express identical provisions, and analogous wording to express analogous provisions. ATAG2.0 WD should be rechecked to make sure this is true.
• 7.5-Make normative reference to specifications on which the current specification depends: I believe that ATAG2.0 WD does have normative references to WCAG and describes the relationship between ATAG and WCAG as well as any conformance implications (in sections 1.4 and 2), but perhaps Jan's mapping document needs to be referenced normatively in ATAG2.0 WD.
• 8.2-If special conformance concepts are used, include a definition in the specification: satisfied at this time. To the extent that conformance concepts are defined in the "Glossary of Terms and Definitions" I believe that ATAG2.0 satisfies this requirement. ATAG2.0 should be rechecked to ensure that all concepts that govern application of the conformance provisions are defined.
• 8.3-Justify any usage of a dimension of variability: Does ATAG2.0 include dimensions of variability (is variation allowed among conforming implementations?). If so, ATAG2.0 must include statements justifying each dimension of variability that occurs.
• 8.4-Include a conformance section: ATAG2.0 does document its conformance policy in a dedicated section of the document (Section 2).
• 8.5-Identify and define all conformance designations: ATAG2.0 does use A, AA, and AAA to label conformance. Are A, AA, AAA adequately defined in ATAG2.0 WD?
• 9.3-Impose no restrictions about who can make a claim or where claims can be published: In Section 2.1 of ATAG2.0 WD, langauge satisfying this requirement is presented.