W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: COMMENTS on draft UA charter

From: todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:24:38 -0700
Message-ID: <02f401c34882$dba61970$020aff0a@tsg1>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Jon + Tracy + Palmer + Catherine Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>

 Hi all -


One of the problems I see in the charter is the introduction of ambiguity
into the process by the use of the word "should".  A charter statement is
not a procedural statement, its by nature a statement of higher goals and
programmatic services.  So to address this I suggest that the word's should
be replaced by "will" or "must" as appropriate to avoid this ambiguity.

Also the Duration section  (ss5) should actually be a part of the mission
or scope statement, and the deliverable should be defined in  the "Work
Product(s) or Deliverable(s)" section rather than the Duration Section where
it is now.

-----
ss2 - Scope
The scope of the UAWG's work under this charter, which is set to expire June
1st, 2004,  is to:

  1.. Collect initial requirements for a subsequent version of UAAG,
including but not limited to pervasive computing technologies.
  2.. Evaluate user agents for conformance to the UAAG 1.0;
  3.. Develop test suites for supporting the evaluation of user agents for
conformance to UAAG 1.0;
  4.. Track and promote implementation of UAAG 1.0 requirements;
  5.. Review and comment on the work in other W3C Working Groups;
  6.. Develop techniques for implementing the UAAG 1.0 for a range of user
agents;
---

And as well, my updated Deliverable Text is:
---
With the completion of  version 1.0 of the UAWG User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines (UAAG), the primary follow-on deliverable is a new requirements
document, complete with an initial set of test suites for HTML/CSS,
multimedia and SVG, and an updated implementation report that includes
results of the test suites.
The Working Group will continue to work on the following deliverables:

  1.. Techniques for (UAAG) 1.0, which provides implementation details for
satisfying the requirements of the Guidelines.
  2.. Test suites for user agents that render HTML and CSS.
  3.. Test suites for user agents that render audio, video and animations.
  4.. Test suites for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG).
  5.. Additional test suites based on developer requests and working group
resources.
  6.. An ongoing assessment of implementation of the UAAG 1.0;
  7.. Requirement documents and user scenarios for additional deliverables,
such as improved guidance on orientation and navigation features, guidelines
for mobile and kiosk technologies, guidelines for accessible scripts and
plug-ins, increased support for XML technologies;
  8.. Minutes of UAWG meetings.
---

These two slight modifications make the DURATION Section of the document
unnecessary....


More comments inline

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
To: "Jon + Tracy + Palmer + Catherine Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: COMMENTS on draft UA charter


>
> On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 10:10, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> > Please review and comment on the draft UA charter[1].  Please send
> > comments or concerns before July 24th.  If no comments or concerns are
> > received by July 24th I will send to Judy Brewer the working groups
> > endorsement of the draft.
>
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/charter-2003-05-draft.html
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I have the following comments about the draft charter.
>
>  - Ian
>
> 1) All of the references to the Process Document need to
>    be updated to the relevant sections of the 18 June 2003
>    draft.
>
> 2) Section 2 Scope: I think that list item 5 is too broad,
>    "review and comment on the work in other W3C Working
>     Groups." At the very least, this needs to be scoped
>    to "for those aspects related to user agent accessibility."
>    Also, since this is generally the work of the PFWG,
>    it should be clarified what process will be used to
>    decide when the UAWG does this v. the PFWG.
>
> 3) Section 3. Deliverables.
>
>    a) Do we really want to commit to a revision of
>       the Techniques Document? I don't think we should
>       in the charter.
>
>    b) Item 5 should be deleted. It's too vague and
>       there's already plenty of test suite work
>       in bullets 2, 3, and 4. Also, we should not have to
>       adjust our work plan simply based on requests from
>       other WGs.

No but the US WG needs to be able to take input from other WG's none the
less. So there needs to be some formal method of doing that.

>
>    c) Item 6. I think that "ongoing assessment" is too
>       vague. We should commit, for example to producing
>       an implementation report every 6 months (i.e.,
>       two of them).

Agreed, and this should be deligated to a hit-squad inside the WG, but also
formally scheduled. The report from this effort would also want to have its
template pre-defined to insure consistancy in the reporting as well.

>

>    d) Item 7. I think this is too vague. I would like the
>       charter to state more clearly what we are expecting
>       to work on in advance.
>
> 4) Section 4. Dependencies. I think versions "1.0" of the
>    other WAI Guidelines need to be updated to "2.0".
>
> 5) Section 5. Duration. It's likely that "June 2004" will
>    be too soon.
>
> 6) Section 6. Success.
>
>    a) Item 2, test suites for HTML/CSS, multimedia, and
>       SVG. First, "Multimedia" is too vague. Second,
>       do we have committed or potential resources to work
>       on these test suites?
>
>    b) Item 4, implementations of UAAG 1.0. I believe that
>       this point is too ambitious. I agree that it is
>       a sign of success of the UAWG if ultimately there
>       are conforming user agents. I'm not sure that it's
>       a sign of failure if there aren't.
>
>
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447


SS10 Comments:

W3C promotes an open working environment. Whenever possible, technical
decisions should be made unencumbered by intellectual property right (IPR)
claims.

This is a Royalty Free Working Group, as described in the 24 January 2002
version of W3C's Current Patent Practice.

Working Group participants disclose patent claims by sending email to
<patent-issues@w3.org>; please see Current Patent Practice for more
information about disclosures.



I would like it more like the below:

It is the goal of W3C to provide an open working environment for the
creation of WWW Standards. This Royalty Free Working Group's operations are
then described in the 24 January 2002 version of W3C's Current Patent
Practice.

To meet these open and fair practice goals, whenever possible, technical
decisions should be made unencumbered by intellectual property right (IPR)
claims. To meet these requirements it is the reposnsibility of the WG
participants to  disclose patent or other IPR claims by sending email to
<patent-issues@w3.org>; please see Current Patent Practice for more
information about disclosures.
>
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2003 10:36:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:34 UTC