W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2005

ATAG Notes 080805

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:07:29 -0400
Message-ID: <42F7E5B1.4050906@utoronto.ca>
To: "List (WAI-AUWG)" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

ATAG Concall August 8, 2005


Jan Richards JR
Roberto Scano RS
Greg Pisocky GP
Tim Boland TB


1. The list discussion about validity (let's keep things civil and
remember that the WCAG-GL is the place for setting what makes Web
content accessible regardless of how it is generated)

Some highlights (in no particular order):

Backward compatibility with ATAG 1.0:


Various place validity might be taken into account:


Invalid code is not always inaccessible:


Exclusion of everyone is different than exclusion of certain users due to



TB: Earlier we discussed valid code as being the end point of the
process, along the way that might not be achieved.

JR: How does it make it's way into the checkpoints.

GP: Allow invalid instances but notify people. At final step (release)
it has to be accessible (and perhaps valid if the two are equated).

TB: If WCAG removes validity as a Priority 1 success criteria there is a
potential for making Validity a deprecated featue.

JR: THe rationale would be we're letting WCAG define the relationship
between validity and accessibility.

RS: Accessible authoring tools need to produce accessible content.
Validity is a requirement for a normal user to have access to the the
web content.

GP: Within the authoring enviroment the User Interface as a User agent
can be accessible even if the code that is being produced at that time
is neither accessible or valid.

RS: The WCAG group is making a distinction between XML and HTML. HTML
not conformance. XML should conform. Validity would be a higher priority
for XML than for other types of content.

JR: From ATAG perspective Web content accessibility is like a black box 
that WCAG defines. We don't really have the stakeholders here to 
overrule them

GP, RS: Agreed.

TB: Donít necessarily feel completely constrained by WCAG work.

Group decided to leave the definition of what is accessible content to WCAG.

JR: Is validity a difficult authoring task? If it excludes certain
classes of authors then it must be something we have to think about.

GP: Intermediate users often gave up on tools that forced validity along 
the way. Users preferred just being able to create content and then 
measure and address validity later.

2. There are still many outstanding proposals that need to be submitted.

These are labeled in:

AI: JR has taken action to explore using Bugzilla to organize work items
for members.

(a) From the last call comment table:


(b) The guideline draft (guideline 1)


JR: Discussion regarding the "out". Author determined to make
inaccessible code can certainly do so.

3. F2F planning

Washington, D.C. early in week of September 19th? Unfortunately Jutta is
out of

email contact to make a firm decision on this.

JR: Need to wait for Jutta to become available from India. Settled on a
week for the last month. This may be sufficient.

4. Bug swatting


We all know the list...

Next meeting August 22, 2005.

Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 8 August 2005 23:07:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:53 UTC