- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 08:30:01 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
- Cc: ij@w3.org, judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
I just wanted to summarize my thoughts on yesterdays telephone conferece: 1. Is the UAAG document "done"? I think from UAAG perspective the document should be considered done from a requirements perspective, and that it should be presented to developers as such. Candidate Recommendation is a period to secure developer commitments to implement and document actual implementation. The only potential reasons a requirement would be removed from UAAG are: a. The requirement is not found to benefit people with disabilities Result: This is easy to remove from the document, since this is what are document is about. There has been no suggestion to this point that any of our current requirements fall under this case b. There is a technical reason the requirement cannot be implemented Result: May require rethinking of a requirement. We have already done a lot of requirements tuning during our last calls, so I don't think this is a big issue during CR. c. There is a general lack of commitment to implement a requirement by developers Result: This is probably our biggest issue for the requirements we do not have implementation expereince, but I think that we should use CR to leverage commitment. I think we should use the process as long as we see developer progress in using and implementing the guidelines to improve the accessibility of their products. I think by presenting the document as done, we can increase developer interest. We also need to get groups outside of WAI advocating for implementation of UAAG. 2. When will the working group be "done"? The major milestone to determine when the working group is done is when the document goes to recommendation. There will probably be some discussion and documentation of requirements for a future UAAG document, but that is minor compare to UAAG going to recommendation. The biggest stumbling block in moving to recommendation is implementation experience. The group is currently wrestling the balance of forces between wanting to get UAAG to recommendation with the force of maintaining the current requirements. I think as long as we see developer interest in implementation, we should continue in CR. 3. Charter I think the charter needs to be redrafted in a way that allows the working group to evaluate CR progress periodically and allow the group to make decisions at those points on whether to continue to collect implementation experience, or to remove requirements that are not being implemented and move the document to recommendation. I think this should take place at least once every 6 weeks. 4. In the mean time we really need to improve our implementation report and 508 vs. UAAG comparison. I welcome the working groups comments and ideas on these topics, Jon Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services MC-574 College of Applied Life Studies University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: (217) 244-5870 Fax: (217) 333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 09:33:56 UTC