W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teama@w3.org > September 2005

FW: Update on schedule and process

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:28:35 -0500
To: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050922032623.4F05C1CC3ED@eq1.spamarrest.com>

Michael summarized our new approach for his group.  I thought it was good
enough I would post it to the other two groups as well.  

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
To: 'Michael Cooper'

Great summary Michael!  

With your permission - I'd like to send to the other task forces as well
as a written summary of intent.  
 
Gregg

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:43 AM
To: Team C (E-mail)
Subject: Update on schedule and process


In this week's call I was asked to bring a couple things to the editors
group. 

First, there was the idea of an introduction to the guide doc materials,
along the lines of what Tim proposed in his submission for 2.5 L 2 SC 2
[1]. The editors agreed that this is a good idea, and to some extent had
already planned for it. When we get all this stuff into XML, a suite of
document will be published with an intro page. They took us up on the
idea that each guide doc should link back to the intro page, and they
have a pointer to Tim's proposed content to get started on wording.

Second, there was the question of timings, given what the team task
force work statement [2] says. It is clear that none of the teams will
complete their work in that time frame, and the editors group spent time
thinking about prioritization. We need to work as fast as we can, and to
get us into the Last Call stage, our current goal, there are only
certain materials we need to have ready. To exit Candidate
Recommendation stage we will need to have more material, but we worry
about that later, right now we just want to get into Last Call. So
here's what is most important for each guide doc:

* Key terms
* Intent
* Sufficient techniques (general and technology-specific)

Everything else - advisory techniques, benefits, additional resources,
test cases - is nice to have but optional. If we have it, great, but if
not, we'll live without it. We should not spend time working on those
pieces. We also only need to provide the minimal information to be
understood by an educated audience. For sufficient techniques, if just a
title in the guide doc will be understood, that's all we need. We only
need to provide actual worked out techniques if a) we already have them
or b) that truly is necessary for reviewers to understand what we meant,
because the title can't be made clear enough.



<SNIP>


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamc/2005Sep/att-0028/g
uide
doc1.htm
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/09/teamtf.html


Michael Cooper
Accessibility Product Manager, Watchfire
1 Hines Rd Suite 200, Kanata, ON  K2K 3C7  Canada
Tel: +1 (613) 599-3888 x4019
Fax: +1 (613) 599-4661
Email: michaelc@watchfire.com
Web: http://www.watchfire.com/
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2005 03:29:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:12 UTC