- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 07:31:56 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000501c642b4$c0cf5ec0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Here are the open items for Conformance - along with suggested closing comments based on new conformance draft Only two open items at this point Gregg Mon Mar 6 23:53:40 CST 2006 _____ 47 issues found. ID Summary 476 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=476> suggested improvements to conformance section - Make sure it is clear that test suites don't guarantee conformance or lack of it CLOSE with comment - added comment that techniques and their tests are not only way to conform. 1324 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1324> Remove Baseline Technology , or limit Baseline Technology... -"Don't use baselines" - need to be sure to have good BASELINE doc CLOSE with comment - Baselines are needed. Have created an improved baseline document 1328 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1328> Use UAAG1 as a Springboard - advice when CHOOSING A REASONABLE BASELINE CLOSE with comment - Put a section in baseline doc on how to choose a baseline in order to provide good content for future UAAG work as specified 1361 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1361> Level of conformance seem very complicated - - Level of conformance being claimed Is this section really necessary? Is it not too detailed? It does not seem very clear to me - again very complicated. 'authored unit is defined as "Some set of material created as a single entity by an author." What is a single entity in web terms? A paragraph? A page? A set of pages? Should this set of material be restricted to one author? CLOSE with comment - We have simplified this text and added definitions. 1362 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1362> Scope of conformance claims redundant? Scoping of Conformance Claims Has this not already been covered in 'Conformance claims'? Should the set of URIs should not cover this? CLOSE with comment - Yes - this has been removed as redundant. 1437 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1437> Supports repair techniques to accommodate current user ag... It's a problem that no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints but I believe in a set of "repair techniques" that, as you say, could be used by content authors who would like to create content that not only meets WCAG 2.0, but that also makes up for the shortfall in current user agents CLOSE with comment - Thanks for comment. That is how we are proceeding. User agent support should develop over time and help out here as well. 1444 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1444> Don't use HTTP header for conformance information Wim Vanderbauwhede says: The Section on Conformance Claims of the November draft of WCAG 2.0 contains the following Editorial Note: "A question has been raised as to whether the information required in items 1-3 above should all be transmitted in the HTTP header or in some other way." The HTTP protocol is used for the transfer of a wide variety of content types. It would therefore not be appropriate to include HTML-specific fields in the HTTP header. Furthermore, this would require an extension of the HTTP protocol specification. It would make more sense to add a field to the HTML header. CLOSE with comment - Comment Removed - will not be requiring information in HTTP header 1555 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1555> Responses to "how many levels of conformance" issue/summary All discussion on whether to have 2 or 3 levels of conformance. CLOSE with comment - The working group has chosen 3 levels to provide the best options for different users of the guidelines. 1556 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1556> Responses to "baseline" issue/summary Comments of Support for Baseline CLOSE with comment - Are proceeding with baseline concept. See improved writeup. 1560 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1560> Editorial Notes in Conformance Section 1) Use HTTP header or metadata to make claims 12) <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1573> it is difficult to imagine how GL 3.1 could ever be assured for community contributed content even if the tool to create the community contributed content conforms to ATAG. It would be better to allow delivery units to exclude such authored units. CLOSE with comment - Claims can be made in many ways. We are not requiring claims or the format for them. Just the content. We have also removed the community contribution language. 1573 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1573> Reliance on User Agent support is risky; provide repair t... Don't rely on user agents to be good. Include repair techniques. CLOSE with comment - Repair techniques will be included as advisory techniques as they are identified. . 1574 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1574> "Target Users" should be better defined. Use 3 levels. Define target users CLOSE with comment - The working group has chosen 3 levels to provide the best options for different users of the guidelines. Target users are discussed in the overview documents. 1575 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1575> Conformance scheme too difficult to understand Make your conformance scheme and SC simpler CLOSE with comment - This has been simplified - as has the writeup . 1590 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1590> clarify when it's acceptable for content's default presen... It should be ok if default doesnt meet if you can adjust it to meet. CLOSE with - SC have ability to turn off or adjust built into them rather than conformance. 1598 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1598> 3 levels of success criteria Explain that not all are 3 levels CLOSE with comment - language added to say this specifically . 1623 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1623> 3 Levels of conformance Comment - people will think these 3 levels are same as WCAG 1 CLOSE with comment - Language has been added to clarify differences. They are similar in many respects - different in others. . 1630 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1630> Intranet example of 4.2 needs rewording Transferred to 4.2 1702 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1702> Date when conformance claims were made should be required Include DATE in conformance claim CLOSE with comment - Date is now required . 1723 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1723> Baseline section is convoluted and confusing Need Baseline WhitePaper Need guidance on how to make good baseline CLOSE with comment - Baseline section cleaned up, organized, and structured. A whitepaper on baseline has been drafted. . 1724 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1724> Conformance claims should include baseline definition Need baseline in conformance claim CLOSE with - Baseline is in conformance claim now. 1725 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1725> Comments about use of UAAG as baseline How do you know if user agent is conformant? CLOSE with - You don't know anything about the user agent of a person. Therefore these standards make certain assumptions about user agents - but most of those assumptions will be made by those who set the baseline technologies. 1726 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1726> Indicate that baseline information is not yet available i... Intro says techniques include baseline info - but it isn't there CLOSE with comment - Baseline information is there - but not explicit. Language in intro to Understanding WCAG 2.0 will clarify this . 1727 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1727> WCAG guidelines should not specify what should or should ... we don't think WAI should appear to be dictating what public policy makers should or shouldn't include in their work. Make the best recommendations you can and let others decide how to use it. You are preparing guidelines... not policy. CLOSE with comment - WCAG does not specify baseline or policy. The guidelines are structured to maximize ability for policy makers to use it effectively in different ways. . 1728 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1728> Scoping allows sites to scope out all multimedia Scoping is a very scary concept. With scoping it is possible to scope out all the multimedia (e.g. training packages) that are critical to users and claim full conformance with the rest of the site even though the rest of the site is not much use without the multimedia. Scoping should be handled very carefully. CLOSE with comment - This is specifically excluded from scoping. But sections of a site could be scoped out if policy makers so choose to allow that. 1758 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1758> Define Level 1 as "minimum necessary and sufficient condi... Comment about how to define level 1 and 2 so WG has less discretion. CLOSE - level descriptions are descriptive - not prescriptive. 1759 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1759> Clearer statement needed about baselines Lots of different comments and advice about baselines and BASELINE WRITEUP- CLOSE with comment - See new draft baseline description . 1760 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1760> AAA conformance Group the items for AAA conformance CLOSE with comment - Multiple attempts to group the level 3 items were made but conformance in this fashion did not work out. 1761 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1761> Issues with "delivery unit" Is delivery unit the right term? Something less confusing? CLOSE with comment - We agree. Have changed it to WebPage 1762 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1762> "Should be testable" vs "are testable" Conformance: "The working group believes that all success criteria should be testable". CHANGE "SHOULD BE' to ARE TESTABLE CLOSE with comment - thanks - done. 1763 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1763> Software for download should be covered by guidelines Don't exclude downloaded software CLOSE with comment - This clause has been removed. 1764 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1764> Conformance claims for content aggregators Advice on how to handle Aggregated Content CLOSE with comment - See new language which allows use of original author claim or aggregator claim. 1778 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1778> Are fully conformant user agents required? Wcag is useless if it requires user agents that conform. CLOSE with comment - WCAG does not require fully conformant User Agents 1787 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1787> Don't base conformance on use of ATAG tools Preposterous to do this since ATAG doesn't force conformance CLOSE with comment - This has been removed. 1799 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1799> Meaning of conformance levels Complaints about how we define the three levels CLOSE with comment - Levels are chosen to allow best use of the document - not to be same as 1.0. Definition reflects our current understanding which is more complicated unfortunately - but that is because our 1.0 approach was simple but inaccurate and based on a false impression. /assumption. 1811 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1811> Determining appropriate baseline may be too burdensome fo... Baselines may make WCAG useless - and 508 will become the standard CLOSE with comment - Baselines are the only way to deal with the "until user agent' issue that plagues 1.0 and limits its useful life. We could find no other way to address the problem. 1823 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1823> Note that some GL have no level 3 SC Note: Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and others do not contain level 2 success criteria. >>Not all contain level 3 success criteria either - I would add this to the sentence CLOSE with comment - Section has been reworded to reflect this. 1840 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1840> Conformance levels should not depend on how accessibility is achieved The document might explain (not part of SC definition) that accessibility can be attained through: a. markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with or enable access through user agents, including assistive technologies b. the design of the content and presentation CLOSE with comment - very good point. This is made clear in the "how to meet" documents now. 1855 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1855> baseline and conformance not well explained Many terms are not clearly defined. Baseline, terms form Dev Indep CLOSE with comment - This has been rewritten to be clearer 1860 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1860> conformance levels aren't based on improvements to access... Feels that SC are at levels based on machine testability rather than user need. CLOSE with comment - They are not based on machine testability. They are based on what is needed at most basic level and what is most important as well as what can be applied to all web sites. 1865 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1865> interaction of content negotiation and baseline Regarding the statement, "If multiple representations can be retrieved from a URI through content negotiation, then the conformance claim would be for the delivery unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted ...." it would seem that the results of the content negotiation might be dependent upon the baseline. If I understand what is meant by content negotiation, it could include, for example, browser identification. So if the baseline on an intranet, say, used Safari, and the delivery unit was set up to provide highly conformant content when the browser identified itself as Safari and a lesser conformance level when it did not, then the optimal level of conformance would be achieved on baselined workstations. But this process would appear to involve content negotiation. Clearly you would want to make a conformance claim based on your 99% of workstations that were baselined, rather than on a few oddball workstations attached to the network to meet special requirements. CLOSE with comment - That isn't quite how it works. Negotiation is on capabilities. If the 99% can negotiate they will get just what they need. If content negotiation doesn't work - then the accessible form has to be there or it won't be reachable. 1868 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1868> A, Double-A and Triple-A, not A, AA, and AAA 4 examples should read: Level A, Double-A or Triple-A instead of: Level A, AA or AAA and should be consistent throughout CLOSE with comment - Fixed. 1869 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1869> target audience requirements that conflict with univeral ... DON'T include target audience in conformance claim CLOSE with comment - This has been changed to only refer to language etc. 1870 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1870> conformance claim examples list SC level instead of confo... In this section and <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-baseline>, the success criterion are stated (E.g. ..conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level 1..) instead of the conformance requirement (E.g. Level A, Double-A or Triple-A). CLOSE with comment - thanks . Fixed now. 1871 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1871> example of scoped conformance claim The section headed "Conformance claims" handily gives three text examples of such claims. It would be useful to see at least one example of a "scoped" conformance claim. CLOSE with comment - DONE 1872 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1872> What if SC are not applicable? State EXPLICITLY that you pass if not relevant - (e.g 1.2 if you have no multimedia) CLOSE with comment - DONE UNRESOLVED 1290 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1290> Cumulative Conformance Policy, Description, and Labeling ... - Big long list - all done except SEPARATE LOGO FOR EACH CONF LEVEL A,AA,AAA 1786 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1786> Suggest using EARL for conformance claims conformance section should refer to the possibility of using EARL to provide machine-readable conformance claims. Gregg ------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/ The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:32:47 UTC