Comments on 16 January 2001 Draft

I think that the conformance scheme is becoming easier for a reader to
understand. 

A few suggestions...

Suggestion 1: Make labels part of the requirement for well-formed claims and
have only two requirements for valid claims.

I think that the following would be simpler and easier to understand.

New:
3.3 Well-formed conformance claims
A claim is well-formed if meets the following conditions:
A. It includes the following information: 
1. The date of the claim. 
2. The guidelines title/version: "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". 
3. The URI of the guidelines: http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116. 
4. The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A".
5. Relevant labels:
		a. Content type labels. Each content type label is an
assertion that the user agent does not satisfy the requirements associated
with the label. A well-formed conformance claim must not include all of the
content type labels (because the user agent must support at least one of the
content types). 
		b. Input modality labels. Each input modality label is an
assertion that the user agent does not satisfy the requirements associated
with the label.
6.  A list of checkpoints that the claim asserts do not apply. This should
include rationale for why any checkpoint doesn't apply.  
7. Information about the subject. The subject of the claim may consist of
one or more software components (e.g., a browser plus a multimedia player
plus a plug-in). For each component, the claim must include the following: 
		a. The product name and version information (version number,
minor release number, and any required patches or updates). The claim must
also include the vendor name if it is required to identify the product. 
		b. The operating system name and version number. 
B. It conforms to the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10],
level A. 
There is no restriction on the format used to make a well-formed claim. For
instance, the claim may be marked up using HTML (see sample claim), or
expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10].

3.4 Validity of a claim
A conformance claim is valid if the following conditions are met:
1.	The claim is well-formed. 
2.	It is verified that the user agent satisfies all other requirements
not exempted by the claim through allowable mechanisms (i.e., conformance
level, content type labels, input modality labels, and applicability).. 
It is not currently possible to validate a claim entirely automatically.
[ETC.]

Old:

3.3 Well-formed conformance claims
A claim is well-formed if meets the following conditions:
1.	It includes the following information: 
1.	The date of the claim. 
2.	The guidelines title/version: "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
1.0". 
3.	The URI of the guidelines:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010116. 
4.	The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A". 
5.	Information about the subject. The subject of the claim may consist
of one or more software components (e.g., a browser plus a multimedia player
plus a plug-in). For each component, the claim must include the following: 
§	The product name and version information (version number, minor
release number, and any required patches or updates). The claim must also
include the vendor name if it is required to identify the product. 
§	The operating system name and version number. 
2.	It conforms to the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"
[WCAG10], level A. 
The well-formed claim may include the following information:
1.	Content type labels. Each content type label is an assertion that
the user agent does not satisfy the requirements associated with the label.
A well-formed conformance claim must not include all of the content type
labels (because the user agent must support at least one of the content
types). 
2.	Input modality labels. Each input modality label is an assertion
that the user agent does not satisfy the requirements associated with the
label. 
3.	A list of checkpoints that the claim asserts do not apply. A
well-formed claim should include rationale for why a checkpoint doesn't
apply. 
There is no restriction on the format used to make a well-formed claim. For
instance, the claim may be marked up using HTML (see sample claim), or
expressed in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10].
3.4 Validity of a claim
A conformance claim is valid if the following conditions are met:
1.	The claim is well-formed. 
2.	The claim indicates which requirements the user agent does not
satisfy through one conformance level and any relevant content type labels,
input modality labels, and applicability information. 
3.	It is verified that the user agent satisfies all other requirements
not exempted by the claim through these mechanisms. 
It is not currently possible to validate a claim entirely automatically.
====

Suggestion 2: Include "meet" as well as "surpass".

Each checkpoint is intended to express one or more minimal requirements
clearly, so that someone evaluating a conformance claim may verify that the
user agent has satisfied the requirements. Both this document and
"Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [UAAG10-TECHS]
suggest how user agent developers may {EH: Add word "meet or"} surpass the
minimal requirements. Note: In some cases, though the requirement of a
checkpoint may be clear, without documentation from vendors (e.g., about
implemented APIs), it may be difficult to verify that the subject of a
conformance claim has satisfied the requirement.

Rationale:

Most of these documents is about meeting, not surpassing.

====

Suggestion 3:  Minor editorial.

Old:

Note: The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group recognizes that
further work is necessary in the area of accessibility and digital rights
management.

New:
Note: The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group recognizes that
further work is necessary in the area of digital rights management as it
relates to accessbility.

====

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2001 18:05:48 UTC