- From: Jim Allan <allanj@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:43:18 -0600
- To: WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
comments inline 12.1 Provide accessible documentation (P1) ok 12.2 Provide documentation of accessibility features (P1) seems inconsistent that a P1 requirement requires compliance with P2 checkpoints for conformance http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/uaag10-tech.html#tech-document-functionali ty "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) ok 12.4 Provide documentation of changes between versions (P2) ok 12.5 Provide dedicated accessibility section (P2) In the normative inclusions [http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/uaag10-tech.html#tech-document-accessibil ity] it states 1. The features that benefit accessibility are those defined in checkpoint 12.2. 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 12.5 How do we fix this? Jim
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 20:42:11 UTC