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

WCAG face to face meeting agenda

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:04:14 +1100 (EST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10003151102190.27181-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>

9-10:30
Introductions
Requirements document for next version.  What is required for the next 
version? There has been initial discussion about making the guidelines 
easier to read, easier to navigate, and ensuring that they are less 
HTML-specific.  What else is needed?

In what ways can we generalize the guidelines? Which checkpoints should be 
pushed to the technique modules because they are technology specific?  What 
about Web applications?

Related reading:
minutes from 2 March telecon - Charles' discusses applying the checkpoints 
to SVG and how we need to generalize them: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000302.html
minutes from 9 March telecon - collection of agenda items and discussion of 
generalizing the guidelines: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/20000309.html
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 -   tried to be as general as 
possible.  Should we use this approach as a model? 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203
WCAG 1.0 - here's what we have to work with: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/
The latest techniques document and modules
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WD-WCAG10-TECHS/
  including the non-w3c technologies module
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/non-w3c-techs.html]

The goal of these 2 discussions is to create an initial skeleton of a 
requirements document.

10:45 - noon
It has been suggested that the needs of people with cognitive and learning 
disabilities are not adequately addressed in the guidelines.  How should we 
address them?
[related readings:
e-mail from Anne Pemberton: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JulSep/0219.html and 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JulSep/0191.html]

It has been suggested that the guidelines are not easy to read and 
difficult to navigate.  How should we approach usability testing the 
guidelines for ease of use and understanding?
[related readings?? Info from Jakob Nielsen?]

WAI quicktips - discussing how to order, allowing people to take some with, 
showing examples in other languages.

The goal of this discussion is fill out the requirements skeleton a bit 
more.  Hopefully assign action items for investigation.

1:00-3:30
How should we address the design of markup languages in the guidelines? 
[related reading: XML Accessibility Draft by Daniel Dardailler 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl]
How do we express timeliness?  Currently, we use the "until user agents" 
clauses. What is an easier to understand method to use?  What about the 
future of the User Agent Support page? [User Agent Support 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support]

3:45-5:00
timeline, accepting action items and long term plan
next face2face
[related reading: draft timeline http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/timeline.html]

if we have time, the following items were also proposed:
impact matrix - how to incorporate into a guidelines document.
user agent support page.
DOM
Meta data
Quick tests and validation
accessibility of graphics
new technique modules: MathML, VRML, etc.  [related reading: Formatting 
Object Considered Harmful by Hakon Lie 
http://www.operasoftware.com/people/howcome/1999/foch.html]

  
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2000 19:04:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT