Re: Making DI/WAI/I18N checks a formal part of the W3C spec publication process

At 4:04 PM +0100 6/14/06, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
>Hello QA,
>
>In a discussion regarding a recent message received by the group, I was
>given the action to raise an issue with QA that derives from a
>suggestion contained within the message, namely:
>
>"if you have any guidelines for spec writers regarding device
>independence we would appreciate the references."
>
>This request opened the issue of how to raise awareness of DI with spec
>writers.
>
>It was agreed that questions like:
>   - Does this spec give due consideration to Accessibility?
>   - Does this spec give due consideration to Device Independence?
>   - Does this spec give due consideration to I18N?
>   - etc.
>might be good "tick boxes" for spec authors as part of the formal
>publication process. If this were the case, authors of specifications
>would be required as part of the publication process to confirm that
>they had considered such issues, preferably with the help of the
>relevant groups, and had either taken appropriate actions, or deemed the
>issue not relevant to the spec. The tick boxes could be linked to
>guidelines provided by each group to streamline the process.

[fools rush in...]

Let me give some ideas of where we stand on this thought.

1.  The WAI attempt:

The XAG [1] offers an example of a read-ahead document for the
architecting of technologies and their documentation in
specifications. This is a long-languishing Working Draft which we
should return to but won't likely do that soon. But it gives an idea
of how we approached the read-ahead problem. There will still be the
need for read-behind where accessibility [.. | DI | i18n] qualified
individuals read the drafts of the technology proponents.

2. Yes, there is a problem:

There is a general recognition that we are too dependent on Last
Call and manual review by the expert groups during Last Call at the
present time.

There has been some grumbling in more than one quarter as to how
requirements documents are developed and then treated as authoritative
in the transition of specification documents.  The development of
requirements notes has transparency, but no accountability in terms
of a formal review by the wider community.

W3C has difficulty making general statements about web content.
What we have been able to say in the Architecture Document is more
about protocol than about format.  The "hypertext web [2]" is relatively
under-covered.  The CDF group dropped back to a short list of specific
integrations in the hopes of gaining headway.

3. QA may not have the whip hand, here.

IIRC the AB is the center of action for changes in the Process Doc
and what we ultimately need are changes in the engineering process
requirements, not just some guidelines docs. But architect's
guidelines for DI readiness would indeed help. And that DI could Just
Do, parallel to the XAG.

4. Requirements on any proposed reform:

a) The people in the working groups have to be able to recognize the
intersection of their topic and the guidelines. [Usability constraint
on guidelines.]

b) Don't expect what you don't inspect: What's in the guidelines has
to be actively checked against the drafts beyond some point. At least
at transitions.

Al

[1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/xag

[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/tp-steven-web/

>Would it be possible as part of the QA work to consider/comment on such
>an enhancement to the quality of the publication process? Would the
>consumers of new specifications be more confident in the specifications
>if they were aware that the publication process formally included such
>checks as a necessary step?
>
>We acknowledge that there are other oversight processes (e.g. the Chairs
>acting in concert to suggest reviews of new specs by various groups),
>but the suggestion we are making is to make explicit certain broad
>issues like Accessibility, DI and I18N (to name but three).
>
>Regretably, DI has not written guidelines for spec writers, but if this
>were a formal part of the authoring process then I'm sure we (the DIWG)
>would be happy to craft something to that effect.
>
>On behalf of DIWG,
>---Rotan Hanrahan.

Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 17:35:42 UTC