[draft] answers to multiple WAI CG comments re: SpecGL

Per my assignment,  following are draft QAWG responses to WAI CG re: issues 
1082, 1083, 1085, 1087, 1089, 1090, 1091.   Note that since 1091 is marked 
as a duplicate of 1049, I wasn't sure how to handle this one..

Best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1082 (extensibility in the case of WCAG2.0)



Original Comment (Issue 1082):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1082#c1


The QA Working Group agrees? with the WAI CG (or indicates that the WAI 
CG's interpretation
as stated in Original Comment for Issue 1082 is correct?)
that WCAG2.0 guidelines/success criteria can be extended, because the 
Guidelines
are deliberately generic; thus they can be applied and adapted (extended) by
different policy makers, and extensibility is appropriate.   The QA Working 
Group
  suggests that WCAG2.0 documentation indicate that it is allowable to add 
additional
  guidelines/criteria to those already in WCAG2.0 for the previously-stated 
purpose,
  but that such additions should be in the style of existing WCAG2.0 success
criteria/guidelines if possible.  Furthermore, the QA Working Group 
suggests that
  the mechanism for such extensibility should be defined formally in the
WCAG2.0 documentation.  The QA Working Group believes that such extensibility
  considerations as mentioned previously are consistent with "2.4.3 
Extensibility and
Extensions in the revised SpecGL draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#extensions


The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.


----------------------------------------------------------


Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1083 (Deprecation in case of 
WCAG1.0/WCAG2.0)




Original Comment (Issue 1083):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1083#c1


The QA Working Group acknowledges that the WCAG1.0 and WCAG2.0 documents 
are very different
in style, and that mapping between WCAG1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG2.0 in such 
a way that would
allow such Checkpoints to be marked as decprecated in WCAG2.0 would be 
indirect and difficult.
However, the QA Working Group believes that the creation of such a mapping 
is important,
because specification users need to know the evolution of particular 
features from WCAG1.0 to
WCAG2.0.  The QA Working Group suggests that an appendix be created in 
WCAG2.0 with the mapping
desired by the QA Working Group (indicated previously), showing and
explaining the evolution of particular features from WCAG1.0 to WCAG2.0; in 
such an appendix,
the QA Working Group suggests to use whatever format is most appropriate in 
meeting the objectives
of the appendix.   The QA Working Group believes that such an approach 
mentioned previously would
be consistent with "2.4.4 Deprecation" in the revised SpecGL draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#deprecation


The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1085 (detailed table of contents)



Original Comment (Issue 1085):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c1

Additional Comment #2:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1085#c2


The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI CG that the table of contents 
should go into deeper levels
to to be able to find requirements and good practices more easily and 
quickly.  Note that in
the revised SpecGL draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/

the List of Requirements and List of Good Practices are linked directly
  after the Table of Contents, and are also numbered consecutively for 
easier reference.

The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.


----------------------------------------------------------

Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1087 (address Accessibility in Requirements)



Original Comment (Issue 1087):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c1

Additional Comment #2:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087#c2

The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG that SpecGL 
should mention the
need to consider accessibility while writing a specification.   The QA 
Working Group
further desires that SpecGL should mention the need to additionally consider
internationalization and device independence while writing a 
specification.  Accordingly,
a new Section 3.3 ("Accessibility, Internationalization, and Device 
Independence Considerations")
has been created in the revised SpecGL draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#address-other-topics

Note that there is a reference to the XML Accessibility Guidelines within 
Section 3.3.

The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1089 (Need Clarifications for 2.2 
Requirement A)



Original Comment (Issue 1089):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c1

Additional Comment #2:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1089#c2


The QA Working Group agrees with the request of the WAI CG to change the 
Requirement
"Identify who or what will implement the specification" to "Identify who 
and/or what
will implement the specification".   Accordingly, Requirement 03 (old 2.2A) 
in the
  revised SpecGL Draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#implement-principle

has been changed as indicated? (NOTE: THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET - SENT 
SEPARATE MESSAGE ON
THIS!)


The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1090 (Managing Variability in WCAG2.0)



Original Comment (Issue 1090):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1090#c1


The QA Working Group agrees with the WAI WG that the approach taken by
the WAI CG in managing variability through conformance to three levels of
success criteria (as indicated in Original Comment) is correct in
interpretation.  The QA Working Group believes that this approach is
consistent with "2.4 Managing Variability" of revised SpecGL draft:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#variability

The QA Working Group thanks the WAI CG for their comment, and asks the WAI 
CG for any input
into this proposed resolution.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Draft Response to WAI CG re: Issue 1091 (Formal Language vs. Prose: Ambiguity)



Original Comment (Issue 1091):

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Feb/0005.html

Additional Comment #1:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1091#c1

(NOTE: This bug is marked as a duplicate of bug 1049.  Should I just 
reference the response to
bug 1049, or point to Good Practice 11 in revised SpecGL:

http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#formal-language-gp

Not sure which approach is best?)

Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 13:17:13 UTC