W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

minutes from 27 April 2000 telecon

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 05:12:31 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000502051106.00a19f00@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
sorry for the delay in publishing these...

minutes are available from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000427.html

and posted below:

27 April 2000 WCAG WG telecon
Summary of action items and resolutions
GV flesh out thoughts and send to list
WC check with IJ to get permission to publish his categories to the group.
JW send a note to the list asking if the Requirements document is o.k. to 
go as a note. give people one week to review.
Participants
David Tanner
Jason White
Gregg Vanderheiden
Dick Brown
Cynthia Shelley
Gregory Rosmaita
Wendy Chisholm
Andi Snow-Weaver
Greg Gay
What type of document
/*WC arrived late and then realized that minutes were not being taken. if 
you have notes from the first 30 minutes of the call, please send to 
wendy@w3.org */
/* notes from Dick Brown about Gregg's proposed division into 4 categories */
make all info perceivable w/o: vision, hearing, color perception, causing 
seizures
make all UIs operable w/o: pointing, fine motor movement, speech
facilitate understanding of organization of information
facilitate understanding of the content
JW /* summary */ after we discussed Gregg's division of the subject into 4 
areas which was broadly consistent with direction the group was heading. */
@@GV flesh out thoughts and send to list
WC is this heading towards 1.1 or 2.0
JW 2.0 - as soon as possible. address issues included in requirements document.
DB what are the limits of the applicability of the WCAG?? where is the 
difference between interface and content?
CS should be clear delineation between responsibilities between UA and WCAG.
GR operating system vs. user agent. where OS should follow OS standards.
JW boundaries not easy to draw.
DB trying to understand issues to generalize is to definition of content.
GV talk about content as to include UA have to coordinate with UA. don't 
know if it will be in this version or next version. w/in 3 years you will 
not be able to tell where UA ends and content begins.
JW common set of technologies that characterize the web and it is changing. 
that gives rise to difficulties and to some degree allows delineation to 
take place. what predictions can we make?
ASW what about priorities? will we prioritize guidelines or technology 
specific checkpoints.
GV good question. in my 4 points...it may collapse once i flesh it 
out...the first 2 were priority 1, the other 2 were 2 or 3 in our current 
scheme. today, prioritize checkpoints. on any goal, have things that have 
to be done versus those that make them easier. don't know if we can 
prioritize on such a high level. people want to know "have to's" and 
"shoulds" and want "have to's" to be clearly defined. General objective 
(strategy) then the checkpoints (technology-specific).
ASW in the current exercise a P1 may have been generalized under a P2.
WC we were looking at generalizations rather than priorities.
JW deliberately set aside priority questions because not relevant until set 
aside the requirements.
GR proposed process: define abstract guidelines, then before write 
technology-specific techniques have checkpoints for that markup language, 
and those would have priorities, then move into techniques for how to satisfy.
JW think there is a level between general principles and 
technology-specific. CMN and I have had that in mind for a while.
GR possible on theoretical level, however worried about one extreme to the 
other. my experience, the middle step (checkpoints that apply to specific 
technologies) would make it more useful.
JW CMN made the point that technique module would be an application of the 
checkpoint to a specific technology. therefore most people interact with 
lowest level.
WC GR said he was defining a process, but it was a set of layers and we 
really do need a process. we have at least 3 drafts on the table and need 
to take them soon to users to see what they find useful.
JW Define who using and how.
WC basically saying a task analysis - the first step in design.
GR want to add to the list people who are coming to the page
WC yes, task analysis. not sure if this be bottom up design - start with 
technology-specifics and generalize principles or start with principles and 
work down.
JW I think there is quite a lot that is not technology-specific.
GR not opposed to that at all. we need to have intermediate level that is 
being overlooked.
CS what do you see in it. WC's draft seems to be at that level, GV seems to 
be at the higher level?
GR WC's is the high level, not the highest possible.
WC want to see an implementation plan. let's stop talking about it and do it!
DT there needs to be a general level that helps define where you put 
things, even the specifics. In these areas these are the things we are 
concerned about. Then you can say, "this is what we are dealing with" how 
do you do them with the tools we are looking at.
JW GV's divisions under which you would provide more info.
WC IJ and I discussed this week, and IJ came up with 8 divisions.
@@WC check with IJ to get permission to publish his categories to the group.
GG we have been teaching these to people who are naive to accessibility 
issues. we provide them with general principles, then get into more detail.
JW so we can take the drafts and see how can fill them in.
WC can not create the middle layer until we have the technology specifics.
JW we have SMIL, SVG, CSS, HTML, XML. what else do we need?
WC middle layer should be culled from these.
JW what priority should we be working on: 1. technique specific modules 2. 
defining checkpoints under the guidelines 3. abstract out the general 
principles from specifics. what needs to be done in each of them and what 
needs to be done and how to work through them.
DT so, we need to look at the technologies and go from specific to general? 
or go from both ends?
JW the group is fairly familiar with the technology modules that we have. 
which technology specific areas to we need to work on. user interfaces? 
forms? multimedia?
GV we have checkpoints above technology-specific level. we construct the 
checkpoints to be general but we don't always have examples except beyond 
the one they stem from. therefore, technology-specific checkpoints.
WC isn't that what we talked about at the face-to-face?
GR that's what i mentioned earlier.
CS add to that, cases where you are using DOM/scripting those checkpoints 
might override HTML checkpoints.
GR right, if generated by database could get the ones that you need.
WC sounding like an evaluation and repair tool.
CS but could be a filter to go through the guidelines.
WC yes, you can define the algorithm that says if you use X and Y don't 
worry about Z, but creating a tool that implements that algorithm to tell 
you not to worry about Z is an ER thing.
JW let's start discussing merits of various approaches. through that 
process perhaps we can work out some of the issues. i put forward a few 
checkpoints as some suggestions. let's start discussing detailed 
requirements using that as a guide. let's learn from the process and work 
as the basis for a draft.
/* time check 3 minutes */
JW not enough time to discuss cognitive disabilities. although, we should 
see how new drafts address.
WC people should look at Greg Gay's document that has begun to look at how 
to move forward with WCAG 1.0 with cognitive issues.
JW next week: joint meeting with UA.
/* GV and DB give regrets for next week since will be at the WAI Steering 
Committee Meeting in Boston */
WC have people signed off on the Requirements document? it needs to be 
published as a public working draft.
JW send a note to the list to be sure.
@@JW send a note to the list asking if the Requirements document is o.k. to 
go as a note. give people one week to review.

$Date: 2000/05/02 09:05:39 $ Wendy Chisholm


--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 05:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT