W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Minutes from 22 July WCAG WG Teleconference

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:32:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3799CE70.6B084284@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hello,

Please find below the minutes from the 22 July
WCAG WG Teleconference.

 - Ian

22 July WCAG WG Teleconference

Chair: Wendy Chisholm
Scribe: Ian Jacobs
Present:
 Charles McCathieNevile
 Jason White
 Dean Denmon (Lighthouse International)
 Rob Neff (US Mint)

Summary of Action Items:

Editors:

 1) Make the errata page more visible from the WAI GL home page.
 2) Draft a proposal on clarifying 3.3 thread and send to 
    GL list. Once "approved", add to Techniques, FAQ, and errata page.
 3) Request to EO WG that they point to/highlight Techniques as place
    for clarifications.

Rob: Send us usability data to GL list.

Chair: In two weeks, put on agenda a discussion of what questions
to ask about guidelines to Rob's users (and for others as well).

---------

Agenda 1) Discussion of checkpoint 3.3:

JW: No need going over old ground. Clarification
of cross references.

CMN: Not so sure.

/* CMN explains background of issue to Dean */

CMN: Three conformance levels is a good thing. RN
has suggested that either we change checkpoint
priorities. But since they're based on impact,
we're not in a position to do so. JW has talked
about a compliance profile - you specify which
checkpoints you comply to. But this is too complicated
in my opinion. Difficulty in current explanation is that
it's not clear how it works in practice. In my message
today, I discussed 11.1, 6.1, 3.3. Note that CSS
spec discusses interaction between HTML and style
sheets. If you are using HTML elements and attributes
in addition to CSS, then you are still using style
sheets for your control. The inclusion of FONT is
not the accessibility killer - it's the inclusion in
place of structural markup.

JW: So how does HTML presentation markup interact in the
cascade? Do user style sheets still override?  Are there
implementations that follow section 6.4.4 of CSS2?

CMN: Amaya gives you user style sheets. IE gives you user
style sheets. When you get user style sheets, the
cascade has worked (though survey is not exhaustive).

JW: To move forward, I recommend making clear cross
references (e.g., in FAQ). I don't think we should
revisit the basic requirement. 

CMN: We should make clarifications in promotional material.
And in the Techniques document, point these things out
(e.g., section 6.4.4). Need to say what counts and what doesn't
for implementing style sheets.

JW: Other observers have arrived at the same conclusion.

RN: Some of the verbiage of WCAG 1.0 concerns me. People will
take these things verbatim. Visit
http://www.usdoj.gov/cot/508. People creating a checklist for
accessibility. Follows an older version of WCAG. A lot of "N/A".
The feedback that I'm getting: People are going to say "N/A"
to a lot of things. 

WAC: What are they saying "N/A" to today?

RN: What they don't want to do or don't understand. How are
people going to fill out the form accurately? How are managers
going to know that the checklist is right or wrong?

RN: People say "CSS, no, we don't trust style sheets."

CMN: The way we need to address "caveats" or "explanations"
is to provide clarifications.

RN: People don't take the time to read the notes.
People don't care about the conformance logo, they
care about accessibility.

JW: Can't prevent people from misusing the document
or not reading carefully.

RN: My proposals have been to create a summary clarification.

CMN Proposes:
 a) List requirements before doing a new Recommendation release.
    E.g., boost visibility of Techniques document. Also make
    guidelines leaner in the next version.

    JW: Some surveys are showing that people spend most of their
        time in the techniques document.
   
    CMN: But a number of people don't: those with more understanding
         of the topics.

 b) Make clarifications in the Techniques Document, FAQ. (CMN Notes
    that lack of explanatory information in guidelines document
    forces people to look at Techniques document).

 c) Tell EO to point people to Techniques Document for clarification.


RN: We need to write to least common denominator. A lot of secretaries
are managing Web sites. I propose renaming "Errata" to "Addendum". 
Make more visibile from WAI GL page. (IJ: This can be done already.)

JW: I don't think guidelines should be written for "low comprehension
level". Up to EO to do promotion. I think it would make the guidelines
work to simplify further (since some is inherently complex). EO
should be writing summaries, tutorials, etc. People should even
be encouraged to start with tutorials. 

Action Editors:

 1) Make the errata page more visible from the WAI GL home page.
 2) Draft a proposal on clarifying 3.3 thread and send to 
    GL list. Once "approved", add to Techniques, FAQ, and errata page.
 3) Request to EO WG that they point to/highlight Techniques as place
    for clarifications.

RN: Proposes changing the title of the errata page to include
mention of clarifications. Add link to FAQ from errata page.

CMN: Need EO to point people at Techniques document.
Also need to get EO group to draft how-to use.
Ensure visible links from GL/EO home pages to techniques doc
and other clarifying documents.

RN: I have some usability issues with the document and not
being able to touch bytes.

/* Ian compares stable published documents and dynamic pages */

IJ: There's no "best document". There are many pages and many
slices that are important. Each serves a particular audience.

JW: Use WAI home page as a starting page.

WAC: We need to put all GL-related documents in one place: the
GL home page. Before trying to fix more, let's 

Action RN: Send us usability data to GL list.

RN: People using Word, Front page, dream weaver, ..

WAC: So people not using guidelines. 

RN: We need to make the checklist easier to use. 

WAC: Cross refs don't appear in checklist.

RN: People will take checkpoint text verbatim in checklist.
Need clarification there.

CMN: Perhaps use GL page as the primary reference point?

Action Chair:

 In two weeks, put on agenda a discussion of what questions
 to ask about guidelines to Rob's users (and for others as well).

CMN: I publish (on the Web) the questions and answers in my
presentations I give as part of my slide shows.
Received on Saturday, 24 July 1999 04:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT