W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: User Agent Teleconference for December 14 2006

From: Jim Allan <allanj@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:43:18 -0600
To: WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-id: <HDEAKIPKOHBCMDILOOPNGECMHDAB.allanj@tsbvi.edu>

comments inline

12.1 Provide accessible documentation (P1)

12.2 Provide documentation of accessibility features (P1)
seems inconsistent that a P1 requirement requires compliance with P2
checkpoints for conformance

	"Normative inclusions and exclusions
	   1. For the purposes of this checkpoint, a user agent feature that
benefits accessibility is one implemented to 		satisfy the requirements of
this document (including the requirements of checkpoints 8.1 and 7.3, and
the API 		requirements of guideline 6)."

7.3 Respect operating environment conventions (P2)
6.10 Timely exchanges through APIs (P2) [all other checkpoints in Guideline
6 are P1 or do not refer to APIs.]

Is this an issue?
If so, we need to fix this by changing the inclusion or changing the
priority level of 7.3 and 6.10.

12.3 Provide documentation of default bindings (P1)

12.4 Provide documentation of changes between versions (P2)

12.5 Provide dedicated accessibility section (P2)
In the normative inclusions
ity] it states
	1. The features that benefit accessibility are those defined in checkpoint

there are no accessibility features defined in 12.2. However, there are
accessibility features discussed in the Example Techniques of 12.2. These
techniques are not normative. Can a Normative Inclusion require
documentation of non-normative features? Seems very weak. The example
techniques in 12.2 can change with little notice. A change in the
non-normative techniques might cause serious problems conformance claims for

How do we fix this?

Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 20:42:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:36 UTC