- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:53:33 -0500
- To: asgilman@iamdigex.net, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al,
Please find below a summary of how the UAWG addressed your
last call issues (321, 340-359, 462). The issues list [1]
is available online. The results of the UAWG's resolutions
are available in the 9 March 2001 draft of the document [2].
Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the UAWG's
resolutions, whether you wish the WG to carry forward
any objections to the Director as the document advances, or
whether you require further clarification or comment.
Refer to section 5.5.2 of the 8 February 2001 W3C Process
Document [3] for information about requirements to formally
address issues prior to advancing to last call.
On behalf of the UAWG, thank you for your review and
comments,
- Ian
[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
---------------------------------------------
The UAWG disagreed with you on the following:
---------------------------------------------
#351: Conformance: Definition of priorities not consistent with WCAG
definitions
UAWG: We don't have new data that leads us to think that a
change is necessary. Refer to minutes of AOL face-to-face
meeting:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-351
#462: Merging checkpoints related to automatic refresh (3.5) and
redirection (3.6)
NOTE: See checkpoints 3.5/3.6 in 9 March draft.
UAWG: At their 8 march 2001 teleconf, the UAWG decided that
there wasn't sufficient evidence to justify merging
these checkpoints at this time.
Minutes of 8 March 2001 telconf:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357
---------------------------------------------
The UAWG agreed with you, but please confirm:
---------------------------------------------
#345: Checkpoint 1.1: Is requirement concrete and observable?
UAWG: Checkpoint simplified (no longer about APIs but
about input devices). Also, for conformance,
keyboard operable always required, mouse and
pointing device required unless claim indicates
lack of conformance.
Refer to minutes of AOL face-to-face meeting for more info:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345
#349: New requirement for support for deprecated features (currently
informative in 6.2)
NOTE: See checkpoint 8.2 in the 9 March draft.
UAWG: The WG (at the AOL face-to-face that you attended)
did not add a requirement for support of deprecated features
but instead put the following in the Techniques document:
"For reasons of backward compatibility, user agents should
continue to implement deprecated features of
specifications. Information about deprecated language
features is generally part of the language's specification."
-----------------------------------------
The UAWG answered the following questions:
-----------------------------------------
<RELATED>
#321: Equivalency relationships and the wording of checkpoint 2.3
#346: Checkpoint 2.4: Proposed split: merge part with 2.3,
leave 2.4 as synchronization requirement
#358: Definition: Equivalent
#359: Definition: text content (incompatible with WCAG?)
</RELATED>
UAWG: Refer to improved Guideline 2.
#347: Checkpoint 3.2: Is silent/invisible rendering really desirable?
What is definition?
NOTE: See checkpoint 3.2 in 9 March draft.
UAWG: Define "render" to mean "make available to the user
through a viewport".
#350: Checkpoint 7.3: Is this really different from 7.4?
NOTE: See checkpoints 9.2 and 9.7 in 9 March draft.
UAWG: Two differences: the requirements differ in both
priority and the set of elements that may be included
in the navigation set.
#352: Checkpoint 8.4: Must outline view be navigable?
NOTE: See checkpoint 10.4 in 9 March draft.
UAWG: No. The purpose of the checkpoint is context
provided by an outline. The outline should also be
navigable, but this is not the minimal requirement.
#357: Conformance: Problematic applicability provision re: content
properties
NOTE: See section 3.2 in 9 March draft.
UAWG: This has been rewritten to focus on how information
is encoded in formats:
"The checkpoint requires control of a content property that the
subject cannot recognize because of how the content has been
encoded in a particular format."
--------------------------------
The UAWG adopted your suggestion:
--------------------------------
#340: Editorial: Use "refer to" for references, otherwise "see" for
informative cross-refs.
#341: Editorial Checkpoint 2.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
NOTE: See checkpoint 2.10 in the 9 March draft.
#342: Editorial Checkpoint 3.7: Clarification to checkpoint wording
NOTE: See checkpoints 3.5/3.6 in the 9 March draft.
#343: Editorial: Checkpoint group header for multimedia
checkpoints v. continuous-time
NOTE: See Guideline 4 in the 9 March draft.
#344: Conformance: Delete reference to Internet Media Type.
#348: Editorial: Selection, focus, point of regard
#353: Checkpoint 8.2: Don't use color alone should be a requirement.
NOTE: See checkpoints 10.2, 10.3, and 10.6 in the 9 March draft.
#354: Checkpoint 7.5 editorial: Clarify usage of point of regard /
viewport
NOTE: See checkpoint 9.8 in the 9 March draft.
#356: Editorial: "Scope" v. "Limitations"
----------------------------
You retracted the following:
----------------------------
#355: Conformance: OS features used must be accessible
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-355
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 12:53:45 UTC