- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:30:56 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <003601c64e00$4eda6560$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
Thanks Tim How about the following Requirement 2: Define the scope. Describe what the specification is about. Let the reader know the topics covered in the specification. ANSWER: the scope section is currently part of the header information - and is being developed in conjunction with WAI. Will be updated. Requirement 3: Identify who and/or what will implement the specification. Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of products or services) upon which the requirements are imposed. If multiple classes of products are targeted by the specification, make sure each is described. Examples of classes of products include: content, producer of content, player, protocol, API, agent, and guidelines. ANSWER: This is identified in the title of the document. The term 'content' is also defined. Requirement 4: Make a list of normative references. A specification is rarely developed from scratch: it usually relies on other technologies defined in different specifications. The Working Group has to identify any specifications that define the core technologies of the developed technology. ANSWER: This document is not a technology specification. It is also technology independent. It is therefore not dependent on any other specification. No normative references are made to any other document. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b <http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9> _____ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Boland Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:30 AM To: Gregg Vanderheiden Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Quality Assurance (QA) Questions Re: Draft of WCAG I just wanted to check on three QA questions following, at this point in WCAG2.0 development: Thanks and best wishes Tim Boland NIST (Question 1) How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent discussions on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 2 [1] (excerpted following)? ---------begin excerpted Requirement 2 text------------- " Requirement 2: Define the scope. What does it mean? Describe what the specification is about. Let the reader know the topics covered in the specification. Why care? Scope is one of the first sections a reader reads, so it is important to capture their attention and make sure they understand what the specification is about. It helps to keep the specification content focused. It helps reviewers determine when the specification is over-stepping its mandate and offers the possibility for revising the specification while it is in development. It also helps readers know the limits or boundaries of the specification and whether it is of interest to them. " ----------------end excerpted Requirement 2 text----------------------------- NOTE: There are also techniques and examples in [1], which haven't been excerpted here, but which may be useful.. (Question 2) How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent discussions on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 3 [2] (excerpted following)? -----------------------------begin excerpted Requirement 3 text------------------------------- " Requirement 3: Identify who and/or what will implement the specification. What does it mean? Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of products or services) upon which the requirements are imposed. If multiple classes of products are targeted by the specification, make sure each is described. Examples of classes of products include: content, producer of content, player, protocol, API, agent, and guidelines. Why care? The class of products helps define the scope of the specification and is needed when defining conformance. It also helps the reader know the target of the specification - that is, to discover and focus on what they have turned to the document for and avoid what they may find immaterial. " ---------------------------------end excerpted Requirement 3 text----------------------------------------- NOTE: There are also related items, techniques and examples in [2], which haven't been excerpted here, but which may be useful.. (3) How does the referenced WCAG2.0 draft (in light of recent discussions on conformance/scoping) currently evaluate against the Quality Assurance Specification Guidelines Requirement 4 [3] (excerpted following)? (NOTE: Appendix E -"References"- of WCAG2.0 is currently denoted as "non-normative". Is there a list of normative references for WCAG2.0, and if not, is one needed?) ---------------------------------begin excerpted Requirement 4 text----------------------------------------- " Requirement 4: Make a list of normative references. What does it mean? A specification is rarely developed from scratch: it usually relies on other technologies defined in different specifications. The Working Group has to identify any specifications that define the core technologies of the developed technology. Why care? For the Working Group, normative references have an immediate benefit: "Do not reinvent the wheel." Using features already defined in other documents helps to minimize the size of the specification and to avoid ambiguities by rewriting the same concepts. Knowing that a part of a specification is based on another technology is a huge benefit for implementers as it clarifies the implications for conformance. Normative references may help implementers to minimize their work by using conformant libraries already implemented elsewhere. More generally, normative references might help readers understand where the technology is coming from and therefore how to use it in combination with other technologies they may already know. " ---------------------------------------------end excerpted Requirement 4 text------------------------------- NOTE: There are also related items, techniques and examples in [3], which haven't been excerpted here, but which may be useful.. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-scope-principle [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-norm-principle xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Took a bit to pull it all together. Had to review all of our decisions and minutes going back to find all the resolutions that would affect it. Think we have it now. Take a good look to be sure we got them all. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ We are going through the last remaining issues now to be sure there aren t any C1 issues lying in wait while you give this a read. 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, 22 March 2006 22:31:48 UTC