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

Re: Suggested issues that may be addressed in next version of guidelines

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 17:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907311747250.27469-100000@tux.w3.org>
my comments with CMN, Jason's with JW

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Jason White wrote:

  I would like to propose several areas of potential development which may
  be considered by this working group for inclusion in the next version of
  the guidelines. Most have already been raised in discussion:
  
  1. The design of XML applications, including document formal grammars, to
  ensure accessibility.
  
  2. The use of scalable vector graphics (svg) to provide interactive
  descriptions of visual content and, possibly, as a basis for generating
  tactile graphics. At the moment, all that the guidelines are able to
  require is that textual labels be associated with images and with the
  active regions of image maps. Are any further checkpoints required in
  relation to svg?

CMN I don't think there are chcekpoints that spring to mind, but SVG will
rovide a great set of techniques.

JW
  
  3. Sign language translations of documents (is there an overlap here with
  W3C's internationalisation work?)
  
CMN Yes, there is an overlap I think. Which means we should look at
techniques for doing this stuff (that is probably still in the area of
research - at least into finding out what the state of the art is). I guess
this will mean we have to look carefully at our internationalisation stuff.

JW
  4. There should be a review of terminology in the guidelines and
  techniques document to bring it into conformity with the definitions
  established by the Web Characterisation Activity. These are currently at
  the working draft stage: http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCA-TERMS/
  
  5. The construction of "directly accessible" client-side scripts. Should
  there be more specific checkpoints in this area?
  
CMN I suspect we do need more checkpoints. But we probably need to examine it
first in techniques for doing this. 

JW
  6. Checkpoints relevant to cognitive disabilities should be reviewed and,
  where possible, improved, on the basis of well founded research in this
  field.
  
CMN Yep

JW
  7. The advantages and drawbacks of using metadata to classify web content
  as to its accessibility, reading level, etc., should be considered. For
  example, in addition to a visible icon and conformance statement, should
  documents conforming to the guidelines also be marked with appropriate
  metadata?
  
CMN Yes, they probably should. There is in fact a checkpoint that says
that...

charles McCN
Received on Saturday, 31 July 1999 17:55:25 GMT

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