Re: [XAG] New draft Announcement

Jason's post to which I am replying is such a good summary of some key
meta-principles dealing with how we target documents that I think we should
give it a permanent home in the meta-XAG page
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/about>.

The only one of these comments I would like to amend swiftly is the last
one

<quote>


>6. Before the present draft proceeds farther, it is time to make
>    basic, strategic choices regarding its scope, content and ultimate
>    status.

</quote>

In this case I must apologize to Ian and all on this list who have not been
stroked with the micro-steps of PF group process.

This draft is in the process that has been being followed, with consensus
support in PF, is for final polishing to move to TR, not requiring that
all major issues be resolved.  I believe that we can both migrate a more
current draft to the TR page AND consider top-level issues such as you
lay out so well here as part of the re-chartering process.  We do need to
consider better the questions Jason has laid out here before a new charter
goes into effect with the XAG on a Recommendation track.  But this should
not keep us from bringing the TR page up in synch with the state of the
last year's progress in the group.

At this point I would like to proceed with the process to get an update
to TR and defer major issues past that transaction so we can have a current
draft up in TR space prior to our Face to Face meeting next month.  And
continue to consider the more sweeping issues on a slightly more relaxed
timeline not holding the TR page update hostage to them.

Al


At 05:02 AM 2002-09-18, Jason White wrote:

>In general I agree with the substance and underlying intention of
>Ian's comments. To be more precise, I think there are at least two
>directions which this document could take:
>
>1. It could be renamed "Principles of XML Accessibility" (or similar)
>    and slated for publication as a W3C note. In this case, it would
>    not be a W3C guidelines document, XML-based markup languages would
>    not conform to it, but on the other hand the requirements would not
>    need to meet the level of precision and testability expected of W3C
>    specifications. This may, in fact, be better suited to the nature
>    of the case, as there is such a great diversity of actual and
>    potential XML-based languages that can be, and have been, designed,
>    and any precise, testable set of requirements is likely to overlook
>    possibilities which have not yet occurred to the authors of the
>    document, and may, in some instances, even be historically without
>    precedent. Thus it might be better to write a "Principles"
>    document, akin to the Principles of Device Independence, than to
>    write a set of guidelines. I am not here supporting, or opposing,
>    this solution, but merely raising it as an issue that demands
>    further examination.
>
>2. If this document is to become a fully-fledged set of W3C
>    guidelines, then I agree with Ian that the so-called checkpoints
>    need to become much more precise - that is, they need to resemble
>    WCAG 2.0 checkpoints to a far greater extent than they resemble
>    WCAG 1.0 checkpoints. To these ends I agree with Ian's detailed
>    suggestions. I also agree with Ian that they ought to be mapped to
>    corresponding "content-level" requirements of WCAG 2.0: where there
>    is a mismatch, either a correlative content requirement should be
>    added to WCAG 2.0, or the requirement should be either removed from
>    XAG, or treated merely as a note to implementors.
>
>3. This document also needs to be regarded within the broader context
>    of W3C architectural activities. To be more specific, consideration
>    should be devoted to the prospect of developing a Consortium-wide
>    set of principles, even guidelines, for the construction of
>    web-based technologies, taken into account broad principles of
>    sound design, as well as more particular questions of
>    accessibility, internationalization, etc. I think the principles
>    enunciated in XAG are likely to have greater impact if they are
>    taken up as part of a more general framework.
>
>4. The main strength that I perceive in the current document is its
>    well chosen range of examples, combined with an explanation of why
>    each of the illustrated choices in the design of a markup language
>    has an impact, whether positive or negative, on accessibility. This
>    kind of information is worth collecting, though it may better be
>    presented as a tutorial or a set of principles than as guidelines.
>    Here, more than ever, it is important to convey conceptual
>    understanding to the designer, rather than to set forth a
>    prescription. What must be borne in mind, I would argue, is that
>    new markup languages are likely to be developed in response to
>    unforeseen problems and circumstances, possibly even in domains of
>    data representation that haven't been explored from the standpoint
>    of accessibility, and this is the context in which the developer
>    needs not a checklist, but a set of guiding ideas, examples and
>    suggestions founded on the pertinent expertise of others. On the
>    other hand, if a guidelines document is wanted, then it will have
>    the disadvantage of demanding greater specificity and testability
>    in the specification of its requirements, hence a reduced scope so
>    far as applicability is concerned, as Ian indicated in his
>    thoughtful contribution to the discussion.
>
>5. I would welcome any move toward a W3C-wide set of principles, or
>    even guidelines, for the design of interoperable,
>    internationalized, flexible and accessible technologies, and would
>    encourage moves toward harmonization of efforts in this area,
>    aiming at the creation of either a single document or a series of
>    closely coordinated and integrated publications.
>
>6. Before the present draft proceeds farther, it is time to make
>    basic, strategic choices regarding its scope, content and ultimate
>    status.

Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 09:56:17 UTC