Response to Eric's comments

Kim and I met today to go through Eric's comments, since they were 
mostly editorial.  Thanks go to Eric for spotting inconsistencies.

All changes are in the Editors Draft of 4 June and the LC Comments file. 
  Some of the wording changes are highlighted in the Editor's draft with 
a style of proposed-text.

We thought that EH13 should be discussed by the group.  Kim and I did 
not recommend any changes because we did not want to add complexity to 
the process, but we recognize that providing more detail on defining 
what is not-applicable is still an issue in UAWG.

Quick overview of what we did:

Intro:
EH01-4 are accepted editorial comments and are done
EH05 "Users must be able to access" is editorial, but not accepted 
because UAAG style uses CAN instead of MUST BE ABLE or IS POSSIBLE or 
HAS THE OPTION

Conformance:
EH07: accepted and done
EH08: accepted and done
EH09: accepted and done

EH10: Poor choice of platform?  Answer: Correct, the success criteria do 
not apply.

EH11: Are claimants able to exclude any and all of the rendered 
technologies?  We did not want to require a minimum of one to allow a 
possibility of mobile apps to claim UAAG conformance even though they 
are not web content.   [Does UAWG want to revisit this issue? I thought 
we had covered it when we last rewrote the conformance conditions. ]

EH12: Is there any overlap between the list of features not supported in 
#7?  I could see MATHML being excluded in both 7 & 8, in which case they 
should be listed in both 7 & 8.

EH13. Declarations and not applicable:  ***  Put this on the agenda to 
discuss as a group. ***

EH14 & 15:  Extensions  - accepted and done. Changed the term 
"extension" to "add-on" for the category, extension and plug-in for the 
subcategories. Updated the definition.



-- 
_______________________________
Jeanne Spellman
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
jeanne@w3.org

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 18:02:43 UTC