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

Re: WCAG face to face meeting agenda

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:24:23 -0500
Message-ID: <38D00D97.1E3EE712@w3.org>
To: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
CC: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Robert Neff wrote:
> 
> a more diffinitive breakout of the checkpoints.  I suggest breaking out tags
> and other items as sub headings.

Could you explain further what you mean by this?
 
> also suggest these be broken out in a matrix so we know the prioirty of
> every thing there as this can be used for a quick look-up and reference.
> something like a matrix.

Please explain further and how this interacts with the movement
to make the guidelines less markup language-specific.

 - Ian

 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
> To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 7:04 PM
> Subject: WCAG face to face meeting agenda
> 
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 429-8586
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 17:24:58 GMT

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