Closing LC-56

[Note.  Now it seems that messages from me are not even going into the 


Processing method for this issue...

If there is no email discussion on the proposal, then on Friday, 9th May, 
it will be marked "Resolved", and not discussed on telecon.

If there is email discussion, we will assess whether telecon discussion is 

Discussion should be on the IG list.


At 05:51 PM 4/29/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>For email discussion, and for the agenda of the next OpsGL telecon...
>The Issue
>Originator:  "QA test suites should also include tests that test the 
>accessibility features of a specification based on the accessibility 
>requirements found in other W3C documents. This may require having a 
>specific person in charge of defining and monitoring the inclusion of 
>accessibility features."
>Originator Proposal: "Include a requirement in the Operation Guidelines 
>for a person to be responsible for accessibility tests of a specification"
>The simple answer would be, "out of scope" for the QA Framework.  But the 
>problem is a little more subtle than that.  First, the suggestion of 
>"should include tests" suggests that the issue really pertains to TestGL, 
>and "accessibility requirements found in QA documents" suggests that 
>SpecGL gets involved.
>The current scope of SpecGL is "...clarity, implementability, and 
>testability of TRs. It describes what goes into a TR with respect to 
>conformance and conformance topics, dealing with how a TR establishes, 
>defines, and presents its conformance policy."
>The scope of TestGL is "...the useability and clarity of the test 
>materials. It covers the analysis and coverage of specifications, the 
>prioritization and management of test cases, test frameworks and result 
>reporting. [...]  The class of product or target this specification is 
>conformance test materials including conformance test suites, validation 
>tools, conformance checklists, and any other materials that are used to 
>check or indicate conformance."
>So ...
>1.) if accessibility requirements are written into a specification as 
>conformance requirements of the specification, there is no problem and no 
>issue -- they are covered by TestGL and SpecGL just like any other 
>conformance requirements.  I believe, also, that accessibility conformance 
>and test issues fall under the responsibility of the Test Moderator 
>(OpsGL), so that the suggested extra person is unnecessary.  Since the 
>accessibility requirements are just a subset of the conformance 
>requirements, then accessibility conformance and tests are automatically a 
>part of the job description of the Test Moderator.
>2.) if the accessibility requirements were, on the other hand, an 
>informative guidelines appendix to a specification, then ... I think that 
>they are beyond the scope of the QA Framework as currently construed.  In 
>this case, the issue is larger than OpsGL (or TestGL or SpecGL).  QAWG 
>issue #12 explored this -- the relationship amongst the QA, WAI, and I18N 
>horizontals.  The conclusion was -- no defined policy, but ad-hoc issue 
>tracking and liaison.  The issue Originator asked (among other things), 
>"does QA try to represent Accessibility and I18N interests?"  The issue 
>closure does not endorse such a relationship.
>To the extent that accessibility requirements are conformance requirements 
>of the specification, then they are adequately covered by the QA Framework 
>guidelines family.  Tests of accessibility requirements are within the 
>domain of the (OpsGL-required) Test Moderator's job, and therefore a 
>special accessibility test coordinator is not needed.

Received on Saturday, 3 May 2003 12:59:12 UTC