- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:27:23 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
AG:: All clear. Please record that I accept the Group's responses to these comments. There are a few remarks below but that is the bottom line after all is said and done. I am also sending under separate cover an editorial comment [not intended to be booked as an Issue] that came from re-checking these points. Al At 12:53 PM 2001-03-12 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote: >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>http://server .rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html >[2] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010309/>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UA AG10-20010309/ >[3] <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call>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>http://www.w3.o rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-351 > "Disagreed' may be a little strong to say, here. I did not give you specific recommendations for change, just suggested that you review how you were using priorities. On a positive note, I do believe that with the clarification of the checkpoints that has taken place since the version on which I commented the priorities are now in better synchronization with the usage in WCAG 1.0 than before. Congratulations. > #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>http://lists .w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0357 > OK. >--------------------------------------------- >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>http://www.w3.o rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-345 > See separate email on editorial comment to Note following checkpoint 1.1. > #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." Given that it is nearly impossible to define a crisp minimum requirement for backward compatibility in the current technology context, this will probably have to do. > >----------------------------------------- >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>http://www.w3.o rg/WAI/UA/2000/11/minutes-20001116#issue-355 > >-- >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) <http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >Cell: +1 917 450-8783 >
Received on Friday, 16 March 2001 21:05:58 UTC