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

Re: Minutes from 22 July WCAG WG Teleconference

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:32:06 -0700
Message-ID: <001c01bed5e9$afdac940$64520518@alex1.va.home.com>
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The URL for 508 is http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/

good reference and you can see the type of questions that are being asked.
very glad that Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division is doing this

cheers!

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 1999 7:32 AM
Subject: Minutes from 22 July WCAG WG Teleconference


> 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 08:37:46 GMT

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