W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > July 2012

RE: Report from WCAG Working Group meeting today

From: Hoffman, Allen <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:30:40 +0000
To: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9F7B0040F7A7C4428E160959229DE9F3018F03C6@D2ASEPRSH126.DSA.DHS>
Wow.

If the whole group is having such difficulty figuring out terms for the broader applicability, why not just document that reality for now and indicate such information is not determined with sufficient reliability for a broader application presently.  This seems to be a continuing theme, e.g. we want things to apply, but don't really know how they do.  Identification of these gaps is critical to figuring out where information is needed, but documenting them at the start of the exploration is as much part of the work as anything else.  It's kind of like the first step is recognizing that you have a problem.  I think some of the current success criteria were intentionally designed with specific mark-up centric issues in mind, e.g. bypass blocks, page titles, valid code, etc.  They may have applicability outside that specific context, but determining such is not straightforward, and may also not be needed.  Expecting that the small group would be able to figure all these out in the timeframe we have is a big task for a small time and group.




From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 8:55 AM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Report from WCAG Working Group meeting today


Just realized I sort of misrepresented the WCAG position on 2.4.2 Page Titled.

It's not that they "did not accept" it. There were some significant comments on it so we moved it to the end of the agenda in order to ensure we could get through the ones that only had minor comments. But it took an extra 45 minutes past the official meeting end time just to get through the rest of our items. So they just decided to take this one up next week.

In summary, we do have one action on 2.4.2 - to find a different term for "title attribute" of non-web documents. But the remainder of our proposal for 2.4.2 is still being considered by the WG.

Andi
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 13:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 July 2012 13:31:20 GMT